Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

ADEN (DETAINED PERSONS)

11.6 a.m.

Mr. W. Yates: I beg leave, Mr. Speaker, having given you notice, to raise a point of order concerning Hansard of this morning, col. 1450, in which, in giving a Ruling, you said that you would like to read in Hansard the words used by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies You then explained the principle on which you gave your Ruling yesterday afternoon.
I have now looked at the words, as have other hon. Members, and have read what the Minister said, as reported in col. 1448 In case there is a mistake, I will read the words:
…but I know perfectly well that the hon. Member would like to see the British driven out of Aden He would be happy to see Aden swallowed up by the Yemen and ruled from Cairo."—[Official Report, 19th December, 1963; c. 1448.]
I did not quite hear all those words yesterday, and, therefore, in a spirit of Christmas, I thought that the matter should rest that the Minister was not implying such thoughts or intentions or anything of that nature towards me But in view of the words, and that it is Christmas, I should like to suggest it may be possible for the Minister to write to me and to apologise personally If not, I will table a Motion of censure.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member said that he was raising a point of order I am not quite certain what the point of order is, but the House has heard what was said. We cannot discuss it now.

MINISTER OF AVIATION (PERSONAL STATEMENT)

The Minister of Aviation (Mr Julian Amery): With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement about

my talk with President Kennedy on 8th January, 1952, and my speech to the House on 12th March, 1962.
These matters were the subject of a Question by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and were raised by him and by the Leader of the Opposition on the business statement yesterday Strictly speaking, these matters fall within the Ministerial responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air, which is why the Question was passed to him In view of what was said yesterday, however, I am personally concerned to put the record straight.
I would, therefore, say my talk with President Kennedy was private I know of nothing, however, in that talk which would lead me, on further reflection, to vary what I said to the House on 12th March, 1962.

Mr. Wigg: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his talks with President Kennedy were so private that, as reported in col. 915 of Hansard of 12th March, 1962, the right hon. Gentleman said:
I, too, have had the privilege of being in Washington recently I consulted the same political authorities as did the Leader of the Opposition…
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in consequence of those words he gave notice to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that he would refer to a speech made by my right hon. Friend on 6th March, when my right hon. Friend said:
When I was in Washington, a few weeks ago, I heard some of the discussions about the prospects of Skybolt, and I doubt whether the Minister can say, with his hand on his heart, that there is any certainty that it will arrive."—[Official Report, 6th March, 1962; Vol. 655, c 224.]
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he said that there could be no possible doubt that the reference was made to Skybolt? The Minister said:
I have no doubt whatever that the right hon. Gentleman was talking about Skybolt."—[Official Report, 12th March, 1962; Vol. 655, c 912.]
There is no possible doubt that he was talking about Skybolt He gave notice to my right hon. Friend that he would point out that the statements were inaccurate, and the right hon. Gentleman relied for his evidence on


the fact that he had talked to President Kennedy Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that the statements have now been flatly contradicted by a great British newspaper with a great reputation? Is he now saying that what he said on 12th March, 1962, is right and that the statement in the Sunday Times of the meeting, including direct quotations, is wrong?

Mr Amery: At the risk of trespassing on the time of the House, I must ask the hon. Gentleman to let me take him through the speech of his right hon. Friend the present Leader of the Opposition If he will begin by looking at col. 224 of the Official Report of 6th March, 1962, he will see that his right hon. Friend then said:
What about Skybolt? There we have delays, and heavy increases in costs When I was in Washington, a few weeks ago, I heard some of the discussions about the prospects of Skybolt, and I doubt whether the Minister can say, with his hand on his heart, that there is any certainty that it will arrive But even if it does, the argument is the same Instead of bombs for delivery over the target we shall have stand-off bombs, which will be released some distance away from the target If the target is Moscow, for instance, the bombs will be released over Smolensk or the Pripet Marshes."—[Official Report, 6th March, 1962; Vol. 655, c 224.]
Later in his speech the right hon. Gentleman, having dealt with the weapons system of Skybolt, turned to the question of the British independent deterrent, and there he said:
I say this quite frankly to the Minister of Defence Like my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, I have spent some time recently in Washington There is not one person in authority there who thinks that our nuclear deterrent adds one iota to the strength and credibility of the Western deterrent Let the Minister get up and tell us of anyone who has said publicly, or will say privately, that it adds anything to the Western Alliance."—[Official Report, 6th March, 1962; Vol. 655, c 228.]
In the earlier passage he was dealing with the Skybolt weapons system and in the second, after discussing a number of other aspects, including N.A.T.O., he said that the British deterrent does not add
one iota to the strength and credibility of the Western deterrent
and that nobody in Washington favoured it

When I spoke a week later—I would now ask the right hon. Gentleman to turn to col. 913—

Mr. Wigg: Which?

Mr. Amery: Col. 913 of the Official Report for 12th March—I dealt, first, with the problem of the weapons system Perhaps I may invite hon. Members, first, to look at col. 912, where I said:
The right hon. Member for Huyton told us that to attack Moscow"—
this is the subject of the Skybolt system—
we would have to fly over Smolensk, or at least the Pripet Marshes I am glad to have the opportunity to correct him on this subject There is no need to penetrate the Soviet defences at all to reach the target which he had in mind.
Then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr H Wilson) interrupted, asking,
With Blue Steel?
To which I replied:
No With Skybolt. Would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to submit to correction on this point? I have no doubt whatever that the right hon. Gentleman was talking about Skybolt Does he wish to press the point? I have the answer here It may take a moment I am sorry to delay the Committee in this way.
Then I quoted from the right hon. Gentleman's speech, the bit I quoted just now, where he said:
When I was in Washington, a few weeks ago, I heard some of the discussions about the prospects of Skybolt, and I doubt whether the Minister can say, with his hand on his heart, that there is any certainty that it will arrive.
I went on reading, as hon. Members can see, what the right hon. Gentleman had said earlier.
Skipping some interjections on the way, I turn to what I said as reported in col 913:
The hon. Gentleman, in the reference which I have just quoted—which I think I have established to the Committee was inaccurate—cast doubts on the future of Skybolt. So has the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr G Brown) I am sorry that he is not present in the Chamber Both right hon. Gentlemen intimated that Skybolt might not reach us That is not the view in the Pentagon, or in the United States Air Force at present No doubt hon. Members will have seen reports of the American President's Press conference"—
five days before I spoke—
in which he explained that very large sums are being voted The President said: 'We are going to spend a billion dollars to equip our present force of B.52s with Skybolt'.


I went on to explain that I had been in the United States to look into the Skybolt question, and I went on to say:
I was myself in Los Angeles recently and I had the opportunity to go over the Douglas works and discuss with American experts the preparation of Skybolt. I am no expert, but I had with me experts from the Ministry of Aviation, the Ministry of Defence and the Air Ministry I can tell the Committee that we came away convinced that Skybolt will be in service on time."—[Official Report, 12th March, 1962; Vol 655, c 812–914.]
Indeed, as hon. Members will remember, the Skybolt programme, till it was cancelled, was not very seriously behind.
After talking about the independent ballistic missile defence I turned to the broader issue of the British deterrent, and here I would invite hon. Members to look at col 915 This is not talking about the Skybolt weapons system, but about the concept of the independent British deterrent:
The right hon. Member for Huyton—I am sorry that he has left the Chamber, but he gave me notice that he would have to go—told us that the British deterrent would not add one iota to the strength and credibility of the Western deterrent He had just come back from Washington The Leader of the Opposition was sitting beside the right hon. Gentleman at that time"—
the late Mr Gaitskell had seen the President and I think that the present Leader of the Opposition had not—
and he also had just come back from Washington I, too, have had the privilege of being in Washington recently I consulted the same political authorities—
I had in mind particularly both the President and Mr McNamara.
Nothing was ever said to me to suggest that there was any change in the United States' attitude to the British deterrent".
I went on to say:
I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence and other colleagues since the defence debate, and they all confirm that nothing of this kind has ever been said to them Therefore, I think that the Government are justified in telling the Committee that, so far as we know, the United States Administration still attaches the greatest importance to Bomber Command and regards it as a valuable contribution to the overall Western deterrent This is certainly the view of the Pentagon and the United States Air Force After all, they are the experts on the question of deterrence."—[Official Report, 12th March, 1962: Vol 655, c 915–6.)
I hope that I have explained to the satisfaction of the hon. Member that I sought in my speech on 12th March to deal with two points raised by the

right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton, the point which he made about the Skybolt weapons system, and the point he made about the value of the British deterrent.

Mr Gordon Walker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are very grateful to him for reading out so much of the debate, because it is clear, is it not, that he was saying that Skybolt, according to all the information he had, was going to arrive and no doubts had been cast upon it at all? In the light not only of what he said in the debate, but in the letter that he sent to my right hon. Friend, telling him that he intended to raise the matter, there is no doubt that he was, on 12th March, conveying to the House that there was no truth whatsoever in any reports on the doubts which had been cast in the highest quarters in Washington about the delivery of Skybolt. That was the impression that he gave.
Mr Henry Brandon, in the Sunday Times, had an article on the basis of Professor Neustadt's report President Kennedy asked Professor Neustadt to go into the whole question of what had gone wrong with Skybolt. The right hon Gentleman made his speech to the House on 12th March Mr Henry Brandon wrote in the Sunday Times of 8th December, 1963:
By January, 1962, reports reached the British Cabinet that Skybolt's unpopularity at the Pentagon was rising That same month, over what was assumed would be a quiet lunch at the White House for Julian Amery, Britain's Minister of Aviation, sparks began to fly when President Kennedy casually wondered out loud whether Skybolt would ever work, and he added cautiously, 'One should not bank on it too much.' 
If, in fact, such a conversation took place in January, 1962, the right hon. Gentleman had no right whatsoever to come to the House and say that he had no information whatsoever and challenge my right hon. Friends, the late Mr Gaitskell and the present Leader of the Opposition—in effect, challenge the truth of what they had said The truth of what they said is borne out unless Mr Henry Brandon is not giving a true account and is not making an account based on Professor Neustadt's report It was not my right hon. Friend who was misleading the House, but the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr Amery: This is a very serious charge for the right hon. Gentleman to make without being a little more certain about it I think that it would have been happier if he had kept his remarks to the interrogative rather than to an assertion.
What is the position? I went to the United States to see how the Skybolt programme was getting on. I discussed it with military, political and industrial leaders at every level The right hon. Gentleman, who knows a lot about the development of weapons systems, will realise that there is never total certainty in any weapons system at any time Naturally, my discussions with the different military and political leaders bore on reliability, technical feasibility, cost effectiveness and all the other points.
In answer to the doubts of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr H Wilson) whether we would ever get the Skybolt I said, and I repeat it again:
Both right hon. Gentlemen—
that is, the right hon. Member for Huyton and the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr G Brown)—
intimated that Skybolt might not reach us That is not the view in the Pentagon, or in the United States Air Force at present No doubt hon. Members will have seen reports of the American President's Press conference, in which he explained that very large sums are being voted The President said: 'We are going to spend a billion dollars to equip our present force of B.52s with Skybolt'."—[Official Report, 12th March, 1962; Vol 655, c 913.]
Mr Brandon and Professor Neustadt were not present at the luncheon, which was attended by President Kennedy and the Ambassador There were no other Americans present All I can say is that our discussion, which must remain confidential, was on the pros and cons of the weapons system, and that nothing took place in that discussion which would lead me to change the reply which I gave to the right hon. Member for Huyton and the right hon. Member for Belper as to the likelihood of our securing the Skybolt system. What I said about the view of the Pentagon and the United States Air Force and of the President is in Hansard, col 913, and, so far as I am concerned, that stands.
The other part of my speech related to the question, which the right hon. Member for Huyton had raised, whether the

Americans thought that there was any value in the British deterrent irrespective of weapons systems. He said that nobody in high places at Washington attached any importance to it, and I went out of my way to say—and, indeed, to challenge him—that my conversations with the same authorities that he and the late Mr Gaitskell had consulted led me to take a different view.

Mr Grimond: As this matter has been opened up, and as the historical record may be important, could the Minister answer two short questions; first, is he prepared to say whether he was or was not warned when he was in America at that time that Skybolt might not be available? Secondly, is he now saying that he did not intend to deny to the House that he might have had such warning?

Mr Amery: As I have said, I went to Washington to discuss the feasibility, cost effectiveness and other aspects of the military value of the Skybolt system. When one has a discussion on matters of this kind, one naturally discusses the pros and cons [Hon Members: "Oh."] But, of course, on every weapons system, all the time, in all discussions.
What I deny is that there was any warning as such, as distinct from argument about the pros and cons of the system When I finished my tour, I told the House of my final conclusion on the matter and that the programme would go forward Events proved me wrong. But I gave my account in good faith That at different levels in the course of the conversation cons were advanced as well as pros is something that happens to any weapons system at any time both in this country and in interdependence agreements.

Sir J Eden: Is it not clear that, at the time of my right hon. Friend's visit to Washington, this weapons system was under review by the American authorities and that, as my right hon. Friend has said, any weapons system of similar complexity is constantly under review? Is it not clear that no firm decision had been made one way or the other by the American authorities and that they had intended to continue the development programme? Was not this underlined by their continuing to devote a large sum of money for the development of the weapons system?


Whatever may have taken place in private conversation, surely, as long as the official public spokesmen of the American State Department and the Defence Department were backing this weapons system, we could not have a British Minister backing down on this.
This was part of the contractual agreement in which the Polaris missile bases were one other component part. The Americans were still determined to back this system. They had made this clear to us, and surely, under those circumstances, it would have been extremely wrong for a Minister of this country to cast doubt upon it.
May I ask, Mr Speaker, whether we have not had a very clear and full exposition from my right hon. Friend—[Hon Members: "No."]—in which he has assured the House that he gave the information which he was then able to give and which, within his absolute rightful duty, he was bound to give to the House, and that there is no question of trying to press Ministers to divulge what later took place at private meetings? We have had a perfectly clear exposition from my right hon. Friend—[Hon Members: "No."]—and under these circumstances the attempts of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to make political capital out of this are wholly to the detriment of and of no advantage whatsoever to Anglo-American relations and the defence of this country.

Mr Speaker: This is a most extraordinary occasion It has never become the duty of any Minister to pronounce upon the political advantage or disadvantage of the activities of the Opposition. May I remind the House that in view of the exchanges which took place yesterday, I thought it perfectly right to allow some questions on this statement, but we cannot, with any stretching of my generosity, make it into an irregular debate.

Mr Wigg: Mr Speaker, any fair-minded man knows perfectly well that in discussing any weapons system there are pros and cons. But the right hon. Gentleman challenged the veracity of my right hon. Friends when they drew attention to the cons. The right hon. Gentleman came here and put the pros. Now it is established beyond any

shadow of doubt that it was not the veracity of my right hon. Friends which was in doubt but his own. The right hon. Gentleman must now "come clean" and tell the House the truth.

Mr. Amery: I have been telling the House the truth throughout There is no possible challenge to my veracity here It was a matter of judgment, if hon. Members like. The right hon. Member for Huyton said that he did not think that the system would reach us I gave my view as a result of the studies that I had made and said I thought it would.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J Eden) was perfectly right when he said that the status of the programme at the time I spoke was fully supported by the President, by Mr. McNamara and by the United States Air Force, and it was funded up to a level of 1 billion dollars, and was going forward, relatively speaking, on schedule.

Several Hon Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: We really must draw this to a close now.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Mr. Speaker, I merely want to tell the right hon. Gentleman that we are not satisfied and simply will have to take the matter further.

Mr. Amery: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speaker: I heard what the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) said, and I now see the right hon. Gentleman the Minister rising, but I still think that we ought to conclude this matter now.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Redmayne.]

SCOTLAND (HERRING INDUSTRY)

11.30 a.m.

Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: First, I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to raise the subject of the very serious crisis in the herring industry Secondly, I want on behalf of the herring fishermen of


Scotland and of myself to express our sympathy to my hon. Friend the Under-secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart), whose mother died so suddenly this week and who is unable, therefore, to be here today.
Our first problem in this matter has been to establish in the minds of those responsible for the administration of the herring industry that a crisis actually exists We have been met with an attitude of mind in high places that seems to regard this kind of question like a mathematical problem in an examination paper. It is not like that This is a question of life and death for men, for human beings The solution requires an exercise of the heart and will as well as the mind. Is my noble Friend, and are the Government, prepared to make that decision? Are they prepared to tackle what is wrong here and preserve the life of the herring industry in Scotland, or not?
This is no overstatement of the case. Let me make the nature of this crisis absolutely clear. This is not a debate about whether our herring fishermen make enough money, or whether they are always right in their analysis of the problem. Nor is this a debate about the generalities of Government support or even the history of that support. This is a debate about whether the herring industry, and in particular the drift net fleet, will continue or not. I remind my noble Friend that on that industry and on that fleet depends almost the whole present economy in the north-east of Scotland and in other parts of Scotland as well.
Since 28th November that fleet has been tied up. What else could the fishermen do? A boat which will prosecute herring fishing efficiently today costs about £30,000; 200 drift nets at £30 apiece; £6,000; and miscellaneous equipment, ropes, boxes and so on; about £2,500 Thus, a capital outlay of £38,500 per boat is no exaggeration.
But what was happening on the West Coast before the boats were finally forced to tie up? In addition to the capital outlay, it costs £100 a week to run one of these boats. In the last seven weeks before it had to tie up, one boat—it is a typical example; there are

many more of them—made only £470. That boat's operaing loss per week on average then was about £33 What about the crews? For some the labour share worked out at £4 per week. They were the lucky ones. For some it was about £3 7s 6d. Others got nothing at all. When I was up in Fraserburgh, one man stopped me at the harbour and told me that he had earned £2 that week. He will not have earned a penny since. I am surprised that the fishermen were able to continue as long as they did But tying up the boats is not the answer. It cuts out their operating loss. It does nothing to meet their capital commitments. The boats themselves depreciate in value while lying in harbour. Above all, they have no earning capacity for the fishermen. Yet the fishermen still have to eat and still have to live How?
It is certainly true that the more fortunate men can make enough during the good times to tide them over the bad ones, taking the rough with the smooth; but even for them there is a limit. The deckhands cannot do this. Nor do they have the simple remedy of a building worker or a machine tool operator. They are not eligible for unemployment benefit. Any hope they may have had of Christmas pudding this year is dead. Their problem now is how to buy bread.
That is the question for the fishermen. What will they do? What will my noble Friend do? What the fishermen will have to do is obvious. They will have to seek alternative employment. Some will go over to the seine net. Some will seek work on shore Worst of all, some will vanish towards the industrial centres of our country and thereby frustrate directly the declared wish of the Government to sustain and develop employment in an area like our own.
Does my noble Friend believe that these men will return? Does she believe that there will be replacements for them? From where? Fishermen are born to their trade. It is a great trade, and they are great men But, alas, the stock is diminishing. There are no longer the reserves with the same qualities, the same backgrounds and the same conditions to take their place. This summer, and last summer, too, we have had the anomaly of a high percentage of local unemployment but real difficulty in some


cases of finding enough men to form a crew.
That reserve supply of labour to man the fleet is no longer there It means that when once again there is a demand for herring and a harvest of herring, the resources of whatever fleet may remain after today will be inadequate to gather the harvest and meet the demand. My noble Friend must face that point. Does she realise that since the stoppage two boats have been up for sale already?
Even if there is a large-scale shift over to the seine net fleet, what will happen? My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland told me in answer to a Parliamentary Question recently that he would not consider giving any help to those boats which seek to change over their gear. I understand his reasons, but I must make the fisherman's position clear It can cost about £1,000 to make that change-over, and that is a large sum. No man charged with the responsibility of running an economic enterprise will invest it without making sure that he will prosecute his new style of fishing long enough to gain some return on his £1,000.
Therefore, apart from those men who leave the fishing industry altogether and who will, I believe, prove beyond recall when the time comes, even those who go over to the seine net will not easily return to the herring industry. Let us not forget, also, that even those herring drifters who go over to the seine net will have to give up three or four of their crew apiece as well. Will they ever get them back?
Finally, on the point of the seine net, I hope that the Government will have in mind what will happen to the white fish trade of this country if even half the catching power of the present herring fleet is directed towards it.
So the men will have to leave the industry. It will mean the end of the industry. Do the Government really want that? That is the question the fishermen are asking, and they are asking it not bitterly but because they want to know the answer. Since this crisis broke I have put a number of questions to the Government. They were designed to point to the immediate solutions that lie within the Government's power. They could be the difference between a mortal wound and a

healing scar. But I have had no success Unemployment benefit? No. No imports by foreign boats? No Complete subsidy on fishmeal? No.
Last year, according to the Secretary of State, it is estimated that the 4,166 crans of drifter-caught whole herring reported as sold in the United Kingdom for conversion to fishmeal and oil would have produced about 130 tons of fishmeal, or about 0·2 per cent of the total output of some 72,000 tons of fishmeal produced in the United Kingdom that year. This year, up to 30th November, 24,600 crans have already been sold—an increase of at least 20,000 crans. The percentage figure will be as high as 1 per cent of the total market.
Up to last year, fishmeal was always regarded as the safety net for fishermen, on the high wire of the more lucrative markets. Once the outlets for fresh, frozen, marinating, kippering, curing, redding, even pet food, etc., were satisfied, fishmeal got the rest. But then came a change. Not so much herring was caught. Less went to that market.
The Herring Industry Board ceased to be responsible for the fishmeal scheme. The subsidy became payable on only 20 per cent of the catch at 25s a cran. That meant that before the boats were finally forced to tie up they were getting 12s 6d a cran, minus the 3s 6d levy for the Board, leaving 9s net in Ullapool and 14s net in Yarmouth. That is the immediate reason why the boats have tied up. That is why I am asking the Government to allow the subsidy on 100 per cent of the catch meantime, till the end of January, in order to create an economic price for the fishermen during this crucial period.
In addition, I have asked the Secretary of State whether he will undertake a flexible guarantee system. At the moment, fishermen theoretically receive a subsidy on 20 per cent of fishmeal every day. Owing to the fact that there is so little fishmeal, this subsidy is never paid. Theoretically it belongs to the fishermen. Now is the time to use this money again to tide these men over their difficult period. I cannot believe that such a scheme would break the bank in the Treasury. The money has been allocated anyway. Incidentally, some fishing fleets base their whole operation on fishing for fishmeal and oil.


Why is it such good business for them and apparently such bad business for us?
The main reason for this crisis is the state of the market. No one expects my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to buy herring herself. But why did she not foresee this situation months ago, and at least prepare for it? It was bound to come. If the autumn fishing in East Anglia had been any good at the usual time, it would have come much earlier. The summer fishing was good and the market, particularly the European market, was fully supplied What then was done? What market research was carried out? What efforts were made to stimulate new markets and retain old ones?
I ask this because, in its Annual Report for 1962, the Herring Industry Board told the fishermen that the market could absorb 40 per cent more herring than they had caught that year. What has happened to that 40 per cent, and why? The fishermen would like to know, and somebody ought to be able to tell them. Large sums of money are spent on research into ways of catching more herring. That is fine, but how much is being spent on research into ways of selling more herring?
There are those with great experience of the herring industry in my constituency who will tell one that 3,500 crans a day is the maximum that can be marketed for human consumption in Peterhead, Fraserburgh and Aberdeen. What happens then? The people who suffer most if the marketing arrangements are wrong are the fishermen. I wish for their sake that at least half the same ingenuity and activity shown in research on the catching side would now be directed towards the selling side, so that people begin to know where they are. They do not know now.
Let me take canning as an example, and return once again to the present crisis. Controversy began when the buyers at Ullapool said that the herring landed there were not good quality. The fishermen denied this and said that they were good quality. What were they? They were firm, plump herring with an oil content of from 12 to 15 per cent., but they were small. Therefore, they were not suitable for curing—what is left

of that trade—or for kippering. But they were still good quality herring. Only their size told against them and in fact that factor makes these fish ideal for canning.
Last year at the same time the canners were taking between 400 and 600 crans daily from Ullapool. This year they are not taking any Export markets are uncertain, supplies have been short and prices high in previous years. The canners, too, like everybody else, have had a good summer season this year, whereas last year they did not. The particular problem, therefore, is to find a market for the small but good quality herring. How can it be done? Everybody has his part to play.
I am assured that canners could provide an increasing market if it were possible to re-establish the export trade on its former basis, by some assurance of continuity of supply at prices which would enable British canners to compete with other, cheaper, foreign fish. That is a point for the canners and for the fishermen. What about the Government? What have they done to expand this trade, and any other trade for any other sort of herring for that matter?
Take Australasia as an example. My information is that in that part of the world, as in many others, our herring trade faces a considerable threat from the Japanese and others who are flooding our traditional markets with a cheaper brand of fish. What is being done to meet this threat? And what is the principle involved where the Government seem prepared to spend any amount of money to assist fishermen to do what they do perfectly adequately anyhow—to catch more fish—but are not prepared to spend money on another, equally important section of the industry—to retain, expand and to develop markets for the fish being caught?
There is so much more that could be said. Let me repeat the immediate point of this particular crisis. It is whether we can retain the necessary manpower for a decent herring fleet. The immediate solution lies in the Government's hands. The answer is probably threefold. First, some interim control of imports; secondly, some interim control and direction of the catching power of the whole fleet; and, thirdly, a 100 per cent subsidy on the herring going to meal and oil.
Whatever the method, there is one answer which we will never understand—" Nothing can be done." That is never a statement of fact. It is always an excuse. If men care enough to do enough, they will find a way. Is my hon. Friend, with her undoubted brilliance, sitting there on the Front Bench in all the panoply and power of her high office, with the authority of Government behind her, going to tell me that she cannot help? If the Government care enough about the herring industry, they can help. Do they care?
Finally, the wider issue which the debate raises today. Is the country going to sacrifice its traditional skilful and basic industries and the men who work in them? The fishermen, farmers and the local traders have always been the backbone of Great Britain. No nation which refuses to sustain such industries will ever maintain its character and its quality. Nor will that nation operate for long economically. Compared with industries which today are in constant turmoil and dispute, fishermen regard their work responsibly. Night after night they ply their trade, risking their lives to feed this country, without any assurance of a permanent weekly wage packet Today these men are watching and waiting. Their lives are in the balance and so is their industry. Will the Government please tip the scales?

11.51 a.m.

Sir David Robertson: I listened to the stimulating speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr Wolrige-Gordon) with great interest and a great deal of sympathy for the fishermen. I was in this industry for 20 years and I left it 25 years ago when I came to the House of Commons. I remember, in my youth, the days of abundance and the great catches of herring all along the West Coast from Loch Fyne and also down the East Coast to what was known as the great East Anglian festival where the Scottish boats went to fish during the Scottish off season and caught great shoals there.
But from the end of the First World War increasingly there has been a shortage of herring. This is not something which has suddenly happened. The Port of Wick, which I have the honour

to represent, was once the largest herring port in Europe. I can remember seeing, 50 years ago, a great many drifters going out of Wick. It was a great sight. There were no motor driven boats in those days and one could watch the many sailing craft earning in struggling to catch the consumer market, the fresh market which always paid more than the salt market. Today, not a native boat sails out of that port. The Fraserburgh people are among the last of the great herring groups around the coasts of Scotland. They are the largest, but they, too, have now reached the end of the road.
The cause is over-fishing. There is no other cause. The herring have not suddenly disappeared. My hon. Friend spoke of the small fish coming in at Ullapool. The fish were small because their mothers and fathers had been caught and fishing is now going on in the breeding grounds where the fish ought to be left alone. The fishermen catch these fish to overcome the high cost which the hon. Member explained so well.
I have made speeches like this in the House since 1939. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr Peart) must be getting sick and tired of hearing me make them. I said in one of my more recent speeches on this subject that I would not make another, but here I am at it again I am doing so because I know that it is true that the problem is mainly due to the unbridled catching of fish, whether good or bad.

Mr Wolrige-Gordon: I understand what my hon. Friend is saying, but he will appreciate that the problem in the present crisis is not the shortage of fish. The fishermen are catching all the fish they need.

Sir D Robertson: My hon. Friend talked about the failure of the East Anglian fishing this year. He rightly said that it was no good. He cannot contradict himself like that and expect to get away with it. It was an utter failure because of the lack of fish, but this state of affairs has been going on for a long time.
I have constantly asked the Government to stop trawlers fishing for herring. Herring are pelagic fish—they feed on the surface; but when they become heavy with spawn, they become, like


animals and humans, inert, and then lie on the bottom.
I remember when this was accidentally found out Fleetwood trawlers going up the West Coast between Rathlin Island and the Ayrshire coast found that they could catch herring on the bottom. The news spread up to the Buchan coast and trawling for herring began. But that trawling should have been prohibited. It is right to protect trout and salmon and grouse and other game birds and nobody supports that more strongly than I do, and yet we have stood by and allowed this sort of catching which is infinitely more important.
This has been a difficult problem for successive Governments It is not easily solved. We had a recent conference which broke up without achieving anything—although the delegates are later to return. I remember the time when Britain was fighting for survival and planes were overhead almost every day and yet at that time the Coalition Government planned to bring about a great international conference of the sea so that all the fishing nations which fish the North Sea and the adjacent seas could discuss these matters High hopes were entertained of the great good which would come from that conference.
When the conference took place, the Labour Government were in power. I believe that there was a conflict in the Labour Cabinet, a very natural conflict. The late right hon. Member for Dundee, West, Mr Strachey, was then Minister of Food. It was his duty to get all the food he could, because we were still severely rationed—1s worth of meat per person per week. All the fish which could be caught were wanted. The former right hon. Member for Don Valley, then Mr Tom Williams, who is now in another place, was Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. He was all for the conservation of fish and for getting the nations attending the conference to agree to share what is a common heritage. He opened the conference, but it was then left to officials All that emerged from it was agreement on a bigger mesh. That was only a palliative, because any man who wants to make a mesh tight can make it almost a solid wall of cord. In the succeeding years, other conferences have ended the same way. All the ports

have been hit, not only the herring, but the white fish ports as well.
The Government recently announced that they were giving notice that we were to extend our fishing limits. That will be a step in the right direction, but we all know that for years past herring have been caught simply for oil and for meal, as my right hon. Friend said. The oil yield from herring is very small. I was surprised to hear that it was as much as 12 per cent. Nothing could be more wasteful than industrial fishing of that kind, for it is taking human food and misusing it. It is becoming increasingly important around the Danish and other Scandinavian coasts. If it is right to protect salmon where rents are concerned, it is right to protect fish in the North Sea, where there are no rents. They are the giver of life, and if they are left alone there will be no problem.
The immediate problem must be desperately serious for the North Sea fishermen. It is rather sad to be told that there is no unemployment pay for the men in Fraserburgh because they are share men. I am rather surprised that that should still be the case. But just because they are share men earning £4 a week, that does not mean that they ought to be thrown on the scrap heap. Some provision must be made for them Provision is being made by the White Fish Authority for men to return their craft and for owners who cannot pay interest charges. It will not do to give that kind of benefit to those in one section of the industry and leave the other men to what must be almost starvation.
The hon. Member for Workington appears anxious to speak, but I will make my own speech, and finish when I want to; I know of no limitation of time here. A Member of my experience is entitled to speak in such a debate as this. I challenge anyone in this House or outside it to assert that what I have said today is not true. It is absolutely true. I have seen it in my lifetime. I was joint managing director of Associated Fisheries, which is the biggest fishing company in Europe, so we know something about it. We saw the same thing happen in North America—the Dustbowl there and the sea here are similar in this respect.
I assure hon. Members—and the pity is that there are so few present for a debate on such a subject—that there is


nothing more important to Britain than British-caught fish, caught at sterling costs. We do not have to find dollars or any other currency for it. This is the finest fish imaginable. I ate a kipper this morning for my breakfast—it was caught last summer off Fraserburgh. Freezing is a tremendous asset to the industry. I must strongly contradict my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East—there is nothing wrong with the markets for good herring and good white fish. That herring I enjoyed so much this morning was caught all those months ago, and then sold at a very high price—which my wife is pleased to pay, because I enjoy herrings.
There is nothing difficult about this—all the knowledge is available. I strongly support what my hon. Friend has said about the men in Fraserburgh. I will go to the last ditch with them, for it will not do to have such good human stock so treated. Many sons of our fishermen have finished up in Harley Street, in the pulpits and in the professions; good stock—none better.

12.2 p.m.

Mr Frederick Peart: I did not want to curtail the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D Robertson), to whom I have listened ever since I came to the House—and I have always been an attentive listener, because of his experience. I had no wish that he should curtail his remarks, but the fact is that this Adjournment debate is running behind time—it was scheduled to last from 11a.m until noon. It is not the fault of any hon. Member—we know that there was a Ministerial statement—but we are running short of time, and the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr Wolrige-Gordon) is entitled to a full reply I therefore make only a brief intervention.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East on raising this subject. He spoke with passion. Quite rightly, he defended the interests of his constituents. As the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland has said, we must not neglect the fishermen. They must be cared for I shall not argue about the three main points that have been raised, because I am sure that the Minister will give the Government's view.

Control of imports is a very important matter, and we are having the same controversy in agriculture. The Bill presented only last week seeks to give the Minister of Agriculture power to control agricultural imports, and I should like to know whether a Bill dealing with the phasing of imports also covers fish imports.
There is a dispute on the subject of catching, and the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland has put his point of view I should also like to hear the Government's views on a 100 per cent subsidy for herring going for meal and oil I stress, as the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland said, that the main herring problem is still that of conservation. Can we get agreement here? We are dealing with a great industry concerned with a very valuable food product. We all like the herring, and as it is an important part of our national diet we are anxious to have plentiful supplies.
Above all, we are anxious that the men in the industry should have long-term security. This is not an easy matter. We have debated it over and over again, but, fundamentally, we come back to conservation. The present fishing conference has been adjourned, but I hope that we shall have some final conclusions from it; that conservation will still be the major issue, and that there will be agreement between the Western Powers at the conference—

Mr Wolrige-Gordon: I agree entirely with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D Robertson) and the hon. Member for Workington (Mr Peart) have said about conservation, but I again stress that the problem is not one of too few herring but of too many, and the need to find the markets in which to sell them.

Mr Peart: There may be a dispute here, because one thinks at once of what has happened this year in East Anglia However, the Minister will reply on that. This is an important subject, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East on his eloquence and vigour in urging the needs of his constituents and of the Scottish industry. I only hope that the Minister will be able to give a constructive and sensible reply.

12.7 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lady Tweedsmuir): I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr Stodart) would much appreciate the sympathy expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr Wolrige-Gordon) about the very sudden death of his mother. It is for that reason that I have been asked to take part in this debate today In a way, I am rather glad to have this chance, since it is now over a year since I was denied an opportunity Prior to that, I used to speak on this subject very regularly This problem affects Aberdeen, in particular, much more than it has affected the near- and middle-water fleets, which go to the Faroes, Iceland and elsewhere.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East, has put his case with great vigour, and everyone must be concerned at the position in which the drifter men from the North-East ports have found themselves. My hon. Friend said, and I took down his words, "This is a debate which is not about money", but, surely, that is one of the matters which is of primary concern to the men whom he is discussing. The real point is that the proceeds from fishing have fallen off during the latter part of the year. They were at a very low point in November in comparison with what the boats were taking this time last year, and also in comparison with what they were taking in the summer.
It is very worrying for anyone in business to find receipts falling off, especially just before Christmas. No one under-estimates the fact that the rewards of a hazardous occupation with long hours are not princely, and I agree with both my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East and my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D Robertson) that, as a group, the fishermen are a very fine body of men Their representatives were very disturbed at the marketing position in November for drifter catches At first, they thought that the situation was due to foreign landings, but it turned out that foreign landings this year have not been exceptional In the middle fortnight of November, only 1,326 crans of fresh herring of foreign origin were landed at

Scottish ports, and there were no foreign landings at all in the final week of November. The drifter fishermen in particular were still very much disturbed about future prospects. During the corresponding period of 1962 an important part of a plentiful catch was being taken, directly or indirectly, for export to the Continent. This year the Continental markets are well supplied. The Continental fleets have enjoyed good fishing in the North Sea during the summer and the autumn.
Representatives of the fishermen met officials of my Department on Friday to express their concern and to ask for emergency action. As a result of this meeting my right hon. Friend came to the conclusion that there was not at present a case for special action. However, my hon. Friend the Joint Under-secretary of State had a meeting on Wednesday of this week with a deputation representing the North East Coast fishermen, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Sir W Duthie)—who is himself the son of a fisherman and has always taken a leading part in our fishery debates—and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East My right hon. Friend has considered the further points which were made by this deputation, but he again has come to the conclusion that no change in Government assistance to the herring catchers should be made now.
The reason is that we have had, in what is a very variable industry, record earnings for the fishing year as a whole. We used to take part every year in these debates on the general levels of subsidies in the summer. A great majority of the men who go down to the sea in the drifter fleets are share fishermen. They have a stake in the venture and an interest in the proceeds, and the great bulk of what they get is sold by auction, and the market is not an easy one, for there are wide variations of supply and demand, especially as much of the catch is exported. Above all, the herring is a very unpredictable fish, and from season to season it may appear in large quantities or may virtually disappear. A well-known author called herring "the silver darlings," and they are silver darlings if they can be found. Consequently, there is a great variation in the proceeds of herring fishing, and hence in


the shares which the drifter men take home.
The takings of the drifter men in the last month or so, when many of the boats were around at the north-west grounds, have been disappointing. On the other hand, if we look at the takings over the year, the average takings up to the time when they stopped fishing in November were better than for the same period last year, and last year, again, was a relatively good year. Of course, the average must conceal boats which have done better and others which have done worse.
The fishing on the East Anglian grounds and in the Minch this autumn has not been quite as good as the exceptionally profitable autumn fishing in 1962, but taking the year as a whole, the gross proceeds of drifter sales up to the end of November were about £60,000 more than in the corresponding period of 1962 It is difficult to make detailed comparisons of profitability and earnings until the accounts—including the cost figures—for the whole of 1963 are available. However, all the indications are that up to the time when they stopped fishing the drifters were doing as well as, if not better than, in the previous year.
For example, the information in my Department suggests that the average proceeds per drifter per week at sea for the seven months from April to November were around £430 this year, exclusive of operational subsidy, as compared with about £400 in 1962. Since September there has been a reduction of £1 a day—from £8 to £7—in respect of the length group to which most of the drifters belong and there may have been some marginal increase in costs. Even allowing for these adjustments, however, the drifters' income should not be worse, and may be better, for the seven-month period of fishing. Taking the landings of herrings at Scottish ports between 1st January and 23rd November, for the years 1962 and 1963—drift net only and not ring net—in 1962 the figure was 213,876 crans, valued at £1,202,350 and in 1963 there were 266,064 crans, valued at £1,297,975.
The hon. Member for Workinton (Mr Peart) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East, asked particularly about the oil and meal sub-

Sidies. Hon. Members will remember that this year the annual Order regulating subsidies to herring catchers included, as an innovation, a provision for the payment of 25s per cran on herring sold for reduction to oil and meal. As was then explained to the House, this, took the place of an arrangement which had operated for the previous four years or so, by which the Herring Industry Board purchased herrings for this purpose at fixed prices. The Government under-wrote this operation. In both cases the subsidy was limited to 20 per cent, of the total landings. The difference is that under the new arrangements the catchers bear the costs and also get the rewards of finding a commercial buyer for the herrings.
According to my information—and on this the catchers should be congratulated—they have succeeded in getting a much better margin out of the system, in spite of the fact that they have sold rather more than the 20 per cent figure, so that the balance has brought them in only the net commercial return.
They now request that the limitation which has stood for the last four years should be abolished until the end of January, so that they would get 25s on every cran sold for oil and meal. In money terms this is not a very large request. But we would be reluctant to make this change because it would alter the scope of the oil and meal subsidy in a drastic fashion. It is open to the herring catchers to sell any quantities of fish for reduction to oil and meal, but it is not desirable that they should be specially subsidised to catch fish for this purpose alone. As was brought out by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland, the Fleck Committee recommended that the subsidisation of sales for oil and meal should be abandoned altogether.
The position of the drifter section of the fleet is difficult, but I suggest to my hon. Friend that the picture is not as gloomy as he has painted. It is not quite what it seems. At the moment a good many of the drifter vessels which might, up till now, have been fishing in the Minch, have been put in for seasonal repairs. Meanwhile, fishing in the Minch is still being carried on by the ring net boats, and they have found very fair markets for their catches. No one


can do more than speculate what the demand for herring would have been if the drifter crews had been at sea during the same period, because a great deal would depend on the quantities, and especially upon the quality, of the fish which they caught.
I agree that the chances are that more fish would have been sold for oil and meal, and that this might have substantially exceeded the 20 per cent of landings on which subsidy is payable. But I do not accept that, having had nearly 12 months of relatively prosperous fishing behind them, including the exceptionally good fishing in the Minch last winter, it would have been a disaster for the general run of share fishermen had this taken place.
The drifter men made their own choice to abandon the fishing early on this occasion I am sorry that on the very day that they left these grounds there was an accident on the road which resulted in the loss of several lives. However, they have taken an independent decision, as they were fully entitled to do, and I do not think that under those circumstances the Governmen can be asked to vary this spread of subsidy.
It is true that fishing for oil and meal can be profitable. It has been calculated by the Herring Industry Board that if the drifters in question had fished all out and had caught 50cran per boat per night five nights a week—which is reasonable—and sold the whole catch for oil and meal—which is the worst possible condition—they would have grossed £254 a week, and with a skipper and a crew of nine the crew members' share would have been about £8 a week As my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland says, we do not want to encourage this sort of fishing, because it can be bad for fish stocks.
The effect on drifter owners was brought out by my hon. Friend—and I shall try to be as brief as I can because I see the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr Millan) waiting anxiously to start the next debate. However, I understand that as we started almost half an hour late we have a little flexibility. Since drifter earnings, which I have quoted, have been up to Novem-

ber much the same as last year, I cannot really accept that drifter owners may necessarily have to sell up One has to remember that more than half the boats which tied up in November would have been able to turn over to seining for white fish if they had chosen to do so, and seining has been relatively profitable in recent months. Alternatively, they could have tried other grounds where better quality herring have been caught, for example in the South Minch. I must point out that the ring net boats, which have continued to fish for herring on the West Coast, have found profitable markets for their catches.
This involves the question of the importance of National Insurance, which has also been mentioned. Herring fishermen are not automatically classified as seasonal workers. Whether a person is treated as a seasonal worker depends on his individual pattern of work. I understand that there are a number of cases to be heard before the Aberdeen and District Local Tribunal on Monday next which will decide whether the men in these crews will be entitled to benefit. I cannot, of course, anticipate the result of these hearings, but I understand that, meanwhile, some of them will be paid benefit if their boats are recognised to be under repair.
On the question of average earnings, I must express a personal comment here, because I think it is a very great pity that in an industry where the average earnings, owing to the nature of the industry, vary so widely it is not possible in good times to keep a part back in reserve to tide over the bad times. If we take the month of November—which is the month we are talking about in particular, because it was on 27th November that these men decided not to go fishing—in the week ending 16th November, 43 boats fishing for six subsidy days produced an average labour share per man per week of from £23 to £24. The next week, 26 boats fishing for five subsidy days, four nights' fishing, averaged £9 to £10, and on the 30th, 61 boats fishing only for three nights got £7 to £8.
My hon. Friend asked why it was that the marketing arrangements were not gone into perhaps earlier or why they could not have been foreseen, and I


think he made a criticism here of the Herring Industry Board. The fishermen, of course, have their own means of access to the Board and I am quite certain that they are never chary of making their representations to it. I think it is fair to say that the Board's functions do not include the marketing of a whole catch and still less can it really be expected to manage the industry in a way that a board of directors manages the output and sale of goods. I understand, however, that the Board has been making strenuous efforts to interest merchants, especially with a view to sustaining exports for the winter season.
On the question of research, which the hon. Member also raised, there is a great deal of research going on into the problems both of processing and marketing. The hon. Member quoted the Report of the Herring Industry Board, and he will find that on the research side the Board works with the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research at its Torry Research Laboratory in my constituency. The Board is very active in promoting export markets. I agree with the hon. Member that it would be a very good thing if production and marketing could be closely geared, but the herring is not susceptible to control and in some seasons is not to be found, or not in the right quality. A good deal has been done over recent years by the merchants, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland, and others to provide for freezing good quality herring when they are plentiful.
My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland asked in particular about the whole question of fishery limits. As he knows, there was a European Fishery Conference assembled early this month in London at our invitation, and the conference stands adjourned until 8th January. Therefore, I do not really think there is anything I could usefully say now, or, indeed, that it would be proper for me to say at the moment, except that it obviously is a question of major importance and one which many of us have debated with enormous interest over many years While that conference is going on and while we are in the midst of discussions on the general question of our international obliga-

tions on imports, I do not feel that it is profitable to say more I will just say to my hon. Friend that I am very glad he has raised this matter, but that I suggest to him that one must see a very difficult industry and its problems in the right proportion over the year, and, that being so, I hope he will feel that the problem is not as bad as he has sought to show.

Mr Wolrige-Gordon: My hon. Friend has obviously tried to show that I am misinformed about what is going to happen. May I, therefore, ask her what is her advice to the fishermen in the North-East of Scotland who are waiting for the outcome of this debate?

Lady Tweedsmuir: I think that I very fully covered every aspect of the problem and that, in the interests of other hon. Members, I should not pursue the subject.

TRANSPORT USERS' CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEES

12.27 p.m.

Mr Bruce Millan: I am very glad today to have the opportunity of raising the question of the functioning of the transport users' consultative committees, and I want to do that with reference to the question of rail closures. I hope that some of the things I shall say will be of relevance to the functioning of these committees in general.
I should, perhaps, say at the outset that I am particularly concerned with the Scottish position There have been tremendous protests in Scotland about rail closures for the last fortnight or so. Indeed, it is hardly possible to pick up a Scottish newspaper these days without seeing the report of another protest meeting being held by rail users, or some other kind of action committee, to fight Dr Beeching and the Minister on rail closures.
There has sprung up in the last fortnight a whole network of committees in Scotland which are now fighting the Government's proposals for Scottish railways. In fact, a meeting is to be held in Perth, on Monday next week, when there will be a co-ordination of all these action committees. Therefore, there will be a Scottish campaign against rail closures in Scotland.
I want to say seriously to the Minister that I cannot remember any other issue on which there has been such unanimity and strength of feeling in Scotland as on the question of Dr Beeching's proposal for closing railway services It is against that background and in that context that I want to discuss the rôle of the transport users' consultative committees. These committees, as they are established at present, deal only with the closures of passenger railway services. They have no jurisdiction over the closure of freight services, but, of course, in many instances the cutting out of passenger services is only a prelude to the closing of the lines altogether, for freight and everything else.
A change was made in the position of the transport users' consultative committees arising out of the 1962 Act, in that they no longer make recommendations to the Minister about closures but are simply given the task under that Act of reporting to the Minister on the possible hardship which will accrue to passengers and others if the railway lines or the stations are closed.
In practice, however, this is very much a theoretical restriction on the activities of the committees, because they take evidence about a number of other things This is the first point of criticism which I wish to make about the functioning of the committees, that there is a considerable amount of confusion, not only among members of the public and transport users but also to some extent among the members of the committees, about what is the function of the committees under the 1962 Act.
For example, there has been a great deal of controversy about the kind of financial evidence which they should accept from the Railways Board The other day in this House the Minister said that, strictly speaking, financial evidence was completely irrelevant I agree, if one takes the most narrow interpretation of the functions of the Committee under the 1962 Act. But if that is irrelevant, one asks why financial evidence is given at all.
Many objectors feel that the financial evidence given by the Railways Board is extremely tendentious. Yet they have no opportunity, in the workings of the

committees, to cross-examine the Board about the evidence which is put forward. The Minister has given some attention to the kind of evidence which should be placed before the committees. He had Sir William Carrington prepare a report for him on this matter. I have read that report, which I find an extremely muddled document It is muddled because Sir William does not apply his mind to the question of what consultative committees are meant to be doing and what financial evidence is relevant for them to consider in that context.
A full profit and loss account cannot be given for these railway lines, or at least not without a tremendous amount of difficulty, and it would involve a great deal of estimating and assumption. So what is going to the committees at the present time is only part of the financial information which would be required to make an accurate profit and loss account about the effect of the closures. In such a case one would have to take into account the prospective losses on alternative services, whether by bus or other means, and the improvements which would be required in road services, and all the rest of it. What is happening at present is that inadequate and insufficient information goes to the committees to enable them to look at the whole question of profit and loss in the widest financial context.
This is unsatisfactory for a number of reasons. It is unsatisfactory in the first place because, strictly speaking, it is irrelevant to what the committees are meant to be considering—the narrow question of hardship, as they have interpreted their functions at present. It is unsatisfactory because objectors have no opportunity to examine the figures of the Railways Board, if they are put forward, or where it is suspected that the figures are not as accurate as they might be, they have no opportunity to raise queries in public with the representatives of the Railways Board. It is unsatisfactory for another reason. Obviously, the figures which are brought forward by the Board for the financial operations of any line or station which is to be closed show that it is working at a substantial loss.
The whole railway system is working at a loss of £150 million a year. One


would, therefore, consider it to be extraordinary if the figures for a particular branch line or station did not show that that also was running at quite a substantial loss. All that happens, following the production of these figures, is that there is an attempt—I think a successful attempt—to introduce a prejudice into the discussions, because the committee is bound to take into account the fact that substantial losses are shown by the figures brought forward by the Railways Board. Yet, at the same time, there is absolutely no opportunity to consider the question, even financially, in a wider context.
This is only part of the unsatisfactory nature of the present hearings of the committees. Much more important is the interpretation of what is hardship. Is this individual hardship, or can we interpret it in a much wider way? The committees have chosen to interpret this, as I understand it—and I have seen some of the reports of the Scottish area committee—in the very narrowest sense of individual hardship That is all they are concerned about. They do not listen to representations about any other aspect of hardship which may arise because of the closure of a line or station.
Even on this question of individual hardship, the committees tend to interpret the whole question very much more narrowly than they ought. For example, they take no account of the relative comfort, efficiency and punctuality of the alternative services to be provided by buses, compared with the rail services which are to be discontinued. Of course, they could have absolutely no consideration of the question whether the alternative bus services to be provided will be permanent.
So far as one can see there is absolutely nothing to prevent a bus company, which has put on extra services in the case of a rail closure, from discontinuing the extra service in three months, six months, or a year hence. There is a great deal of misunderstanding and dissatisfaction about this, and about the obligation of the Railways Board to subsidise bus services which replace railway services where those bus services also are running at a loss. The Minister, at one time or another, has said that the Railways Board does recognise some obligation. But it is by no means clear

that the Hoard recognises it in all the circumstances where there may be such a loss.
Even more important is the whole question of hardship in the much wider sense. At present, consultative committees take absolutely no evidence and no account of the general economic development of the area concerned. I should have thought it a truism, to be recognised even by the Minister of Transport, that railway services are extremely important from the point of view of the economic development of an area. As a matter of fact, the White Paper on Central Scotland makes exactly that point, that rail services and proposals for closures will have to be considered in the context of the development plans, for the area.
But the consultative committees take no account of that at all. They do not consider the economic implications, or interpret hardship in the wider sense that economic hardship may accrue to an area if a line is closed down; or the disadvantage to which people in the area may be put from the point of view of future economic development. This is not a question of branch lines running to remote places in the Highlands, because Dr Beeching's Report for Scotland proposes the discontinuance of rail services to two of our new towns East Kilbride and Cumbernauld, and, if these are not growing development areas, what are they?
I could give similar examples from all over the United Kingdom. I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to what was said only this week by Lord Polwarth, who is Chairman of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) and, incidentally, a Tory Member of another place.
Lord Polwarth said this week that the Government's policy of railway closures were
…a fine economic example of sawing off the branch on which you are sitting.
No one is more experienced than he in the problems and prospects of Scottish economic development and he seems to be satisfied that the way in which present Government policy is operating will not safeguard the economic development of parts of Scotland.
The same applies to the Highland Panel, one of the most respectable


bodies appointed by the Government in all Scotland A fortnight ago the Panel announced that if the rail closures from Inverness to the North went through the Panel would resign en bloc. I hope that the Minister takes this seriously, because this is a very respectable body which in the opinion of some of us has not been nearly radical enough in its proposals and reactions over the last few years. When even that body is to resign. I hope that the Minister recognises the seriousness of the situation.
I know that in reply to the debate the Minister will say that these consultative committees do not need to consider the wider aspects of the question, because they simply report to the Minister and it is the Minister who takes all these wider aspects into consideration before he makes his final decision. If he thinks that it is any comfort to the people of Scotland to know that he will take the final decision, I ought to disabuse him at once, because that is exactly what worries people in Scotland. It is no comfort to them to know that he is to take the final decision.
Apart from anything else, people find a great deal of understandable difficulty in knowing what is the Government's comprehensive transport policy. The criticism expressed not just by hon. Members here, but by people outside, is that what is wrong is that the Government have no comprehensive transport policy and is unable to consider proposals for the railways in this wider context.
We are assured that the Secretary of State for Scotland will be consulted by the Minister of Transport at every point so that no closure will take place without the Secretary of State's consent. But the Secretary of State is not mentioned in the Transport Act, so that this is purely a formal inter-departmental arrangement between the Minister of Transport and the Secretary of State. Incidentally, I am disappointed that there is no representative of the Scottish Office on the Front Bench this morning. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport is here, but he no longer represents the Scottish Office. We are always

assured that the Scottish Office is keeping a close eye on this matter and that nothing will happen without its knowing about it.

Mr John Rankin: A closed eye.

Mr Millan: This does not satisfy people in Scotland I will not quote from any Opposition source, but I would draw the Minister's attention, for example, to the fact that I noticed from the newspapers that the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Sir J MacLeod) says that he will resign the Government Whip if the Government close railways north and west of Inverness. He does not seem confident in the ability of the Secretary of State to look after the interests of Scotland.
Sir John Brooke, chairman of the Ross and Cromarty Unionist Association, commenting on a resolution calling upon the Prime Minister to dismiss the Secretary of State, said:
The Secretary of State has never raised any fight He has made many promises but has not said anything to confirm his original statements.
These are quotations from good authentic Tory sources. If they do not trust the Minister of Transport and the Secretary of State, I see no reason why the rest of us should trust them.
The Secretary of State for Scotland obviously took fright at this at the beginning of the week, because, earlier there was an inspired leak in the newspapers, from the Secretary of State, saying that we need not worry about closures and asking what was this nonsense about Beeching and the Minister closing down railways. It would not happen because the Secretary of State would step in and stop them The Scottish Daily Express on Wednesday, carried the headine on the front page, "They are Saved". The Secretary of State was going to save the railway lines in Scotland and there were not to be any closures and we need not worry about them. This came straight from the Scottish Office Next day, the thing having been given this tremendous publicity, we had what was a retraction from the Scottish Office.

The Minister of Transport (Mr Ernest Marples): The hon. Member has not been as moderate as he was in Standing


Committee when we discussed the Bill as it then was Has he any evidence that the Scottish Office has inspired that sort of thing?

Mr Millan: There is plenty of evidence I know exactly where it came from and, in any case, the report itself makes clear—

Mr Marples: I must press the hon. Member for that evidence to be disclosed.

Mr Millan: The fact is that these statements appeared in every newspaper, not just the Scottish Daily Express, and were quoted in many cases as representing to have come from a spokesman at the Scottish Office. I cannot give the exact quotation from the Scottish Daily Express, but I am absolutely clear that this was what happened and I can present evidence to the right hon. Gentleman at the end of this debate. If he consults the Secretary of State for Scotland, that right hon. Gentleman will confirm that what I say is absolutely accurate. This came from the Scottish Office.

Mr Marples: I am very grateful and I shall look forward to receiving the evidence.

Mr Millan: The Scottish Office was then put in the position of having to retract to some extent and to say that this was not really true. The Secretary of State had not gone as far as this and the fact was that there was nothing definite about railway closures. One would not know what was to happen until the consultative committees reported on these various closures to the Minister.
This action is only a typical example of the confusion about Government policy on closures It is extraordinarily difficult for any member of the public to find out exactly what Government policy is. They want to know whether Dr Beeching's proposals will go through or not and they are not satisfied with the ambiguity of Government statements, whether they come from the Secretary of State or the Ministry of Transport. If the Minister wants to restore any confidence at all among the people of Scotland about rail closures he ought to come to a conclusion about them and say exactly what the Govern-

ment intend to do about the Beeching Report. In particular, he should try to relate that report to the Government's White Paper on Central Scotland, the prospects for economic development in Scotland and the rest The present situation is creating the maximum confusion and lack of confidence in the Government.
The right hon. Gentleman must look at the functioning of the consultative committees. He must make up his mind either to restrict them to the most narrow interpretation of hardship, in which case the financial evidence and the rest given by the Railways Board should be ruled out of order as completely inadmissible and we should then have these committees exposed as the farce they are at present, or he must reform procedure to allow these committees to look at this question in the wider economic and social context. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will choose the latter alternative, but if he does not he should put a stop to the farce that these committees are considering in any real sense the proposals put forward to them by the Railways Board.
I am clear that the present situation cannot go on. There is growing concern about it in Scotland and there is public agitation. It arises from the ambiguity of Government policy and the unwillingness of the Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland to say exactly what that policy is and to give the pledge for which people in Scotland ask that the Beeching proposals will not be carried through, because this would mean the economic end of many areas in Scotland.
Unless we can get that pledge from the Minister this morning, the confusion and lack of confidence in the Government will continue. I warn the Minister of Transport—and it gives me no pleasure to say this—that nothing will do his policy more harm in Scotland at the General Election than the appalling muddle and mismanagement of the Government's railway closures policy.

12.50 p.m.

Sir David Robertson: rose—

Mr Speaker: The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D Robertson) require; leave of the House, because


he has already spoken to this Question. Maybe he will have it I will call him and we shall see. Sir David Robertson.

Sir D Robertson: I beg pardon, Mr Speaker?

Mr Speaker: The point is that the hon. Member requires the leave of the House to speak again because he has already spoken to this Question.

Sir D Robertson: When I came into the Chamber this morning I did so to listen to a statement on the conflict of views between the Secretary of State for Air and an hon. Member opposite However, I could not resist rising to my feet in this debate. It did not occur to me, as this is another debate, that I would need the permission of the House, but I now ask for permission to speak as the only back bencher from the Highlands in the Chamber who is interested in, and present for, this vitally important matter of railway closures.

Mr Rankin: The only Tory back bencher.

Mr Speaker: I hear a silence pregnant with assent. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has leave.

Sir D Robertson: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr Millan) on making an excellent speech I took part in the first day's debate on the Beeching plan on 29th April. It continued on the next day, and I do not think we have had such a debate in this House until today. At least, if there has been one, I am not aware of it.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr T G D Galbraith): We had one last night.

Sir D Robertson: I was not here last night.
The position in Scotland is very serious. The hon. Member for Craigton referred to the agitation that is going on, but it is not only to be found in Ross and Cromarty. It is going on all over Scotland. I have never known any think like it in my lifetime The Government should be apprised of that fact because the people in Scotland are

beginning to see what a raw deal they have had for a long time.
Our numbers in Scotland were always a little fewer than in England, but during the latter part of the nineteenth century and the whole of this half century we have been losing more and more of our people who have been drifting overseas and to the South until a situation has been reached in which we enjoy only 8 per cent. of the manufacturing industry of Great Britain.
It was a totally different story when I was a young man in Glasgow. We enjoyed very much more of the manufacturing industry England has not been a very good big brother to us. I am sorry to say that, because I have lived in England for over half a century and I have received great friendliness and kindness from the English. I have always regarded us as one people. But we are not one people when we consider the location of people and industry.
This situation must be changed. I am certain that nobody more than the English would want the situation to be changed because they are the main sufferers in the long run. Owing to the railway situation in Scotland we are threatened with losing 41 per cent of it, and I am not smiling at that as an hon. Member is doing. What is the percentage in England? Perhaps the Minister will tell us before the debate is over. This is due to the failure to distribute people and industry. That is the beginning and end of it.
The Highland area, which is represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Sir J MacLeod) and four other Members, is almost half of Scotland territorially, and there are five Members representing that area out of 71 Scottish Members. That area accommodated one-third of the people of Scotland 150 years ago. Now it carries about 4 per cent. There are 50 million people south of the Cheviots, 5 million in Scotland, and fewer than 250,000 in half of Scotland, and that is the half that is to be torn to ribbons if this railway threat comes about.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton wants to know what the Government policy is. The policy for the West Coast of the Highlands is to be totally different from the policy for the central part and the rest I


have known the West Highland line since I was born. In fact, it was completed shortly before I was born. It is a very small line compared to the great line which begins at Euston and goes up to Crewe, Carlisle, Stirling, Perth, Inverness, Dingwall, Invergordon, Wick and Thurso. It was the lifeline of the Navy in two world wars. It is part of the longest rail journey in Britain, and it has given a magnificent service.
One can leave a full day's work behind in London and dine, sleep and breakfast on the train, arriving in Inverness at 8.30 the following morning, ready to face another day's work. If one goes by air in an hour or two one can put in a day's work there, and come back to London and make a speech, as I have done on one occasion at least. It was Government policy which saved the West Highland line. The Government decided to put up so many million pounds of capital to establish a pulp mill, which Britain badly needs, at Corpach, near Fort William. More than one is needed; several are needed.
Because of that industry the West Highland line from Glasgow to Fort William, Mallaig, the tourist and herring line, is being saved. I suggested to the right hon. Gentleman on 29th April that he should give us one or two more pulp mills in order to save the much more important line north of Inverness. But nothing has happened, and nothing will happen unless the House of Commons takes the bit between its teeth and sees that this comes about.
There is dreadful overcrowding in the south of England, where the bulk of us live and work—in London and the South-East, in Birmingham, Coventry and the West Midlands. It is not pleasant living in overcrowded houses and trying to find accommodation, crushing into the tubes if one is lucky enough to get in before the doors close, and waiting for buses. The scenes on the mainline railway stations, at Liverpool Street, Victoria and the others, are appalling. We have created a monster. Nobody can challenge that fact.
However, I give my right hon. Friend credit for what he is trying to do. I have always regarded him as a first-class Minister, as I know he is, but this situation is above his head. This is a Cabinet

job. All this can be saved by the location of industry in Wick and Thurso.
When I suggested that the Government should site an atomic plant in my constituency I met Sir Christopher Hinton, who was then the head of the Atomic Energy Authority, and he told me how unsuitable Caithness and Sutherland or any part of the Highlands would be. One of the great difficulties that he foresaw was that the talented people, the scientists and technologists and particularly the professors from the major universities at Oxford and Cambridge, had to be near the plant. It is necessary that they should be there from time to time. I told him that I had three dukes in my constituency, rich men, who could afford to go and live anywhere. I have 20 millionaires who misuse land. Far too much land is devoted to sport. I am all in favour of sport, but not unbridled sport.
That is what is happening. Let us have some industry in towns like Wick, which is over 1,000 years old. We need industry in Thurso, too. I must not overlook the sequel to the Thurso story. The Dounreay atomic plant near Thurso employs, I believe, 3,000 people. Before that plant came, the population was 2,500 or 3,000, and it is now 10,000. That is the magic which has worked since 1954 or 1955 in the town of Thurso, which was once much more of a town find which is now seeing finer days, with a population exceeding what it ever had before. This has happened because one plant has arrived. The same has happened to Fort William. The town is saved and the railway is saved because one plant has come in.
I appeal to the Minister to realise that here lies the solution to our problem. He will be greatly helped, I am sure, by the people who are so tired of the appalling overcrowding in the monster areas of the Midlands and the South where far too many people live. We have all the things we want in Scotland.
The hon. Member for Craigton has dealt with the consultative committees. I once wished to consult the consultative and I asked where its address was. I was told that it could be found in the headquarters building of British


Railways in Edinburgh. I went there and I met the secretary, a charming gentleman who had for many years been in the railway service. He may have retired prematurely or, perhaps, retired at the end of his time, and he has taken on this job. He sat in a room adjoining the office of the railway manager.
I came away with the feeling that I had not been talking to someone who really was independent. He may be on the salary list of the railway—indeed, I am sure that he is—and that is not a very good start for a transport users' consultative committee, particularly in a place like Edinburgh, where there are all kinds of professional people, lawyers, chartered accountants and others, who would be only too willing to take on part-time secretarial duties of that kind. I suppose that the railways appoint the consultative committees. Is that what happens? They are not appointed by the House of Commons, so far as I know. It is not a good set-up. I do not for a moment suggest that the members of the consultative committees are not good men and true, but, if they or their officers are housed in the railway building and they meet railway officials day by day, they are bound to be influenced. I do not think that it is a good start.
The Minister tells us that nothing will happen until we get alternative services. But what kind of alternative services are they to be—double-decker buses which get crowded and gummed up inside and out in rainy or frosty weather, buses which travel at a very slow pace? That is no alternative. The need can be met only by the very latest special type of bus used by B.E.A., B.O.A.C. and by the airlines on the Continent—fast buses serving meals in the same way as they are served on aeroplanes, with toilet facilities, and so on. But nothing of that sort seems to be suggested. We have just the big mailed fist of threatened closures.
It is up to us to put things right. The House of Commons must bring some clarity into these things. There is not much chance today, with less than a dozen Members in the Chamber, but perhaps we shall be helped by the Press which faithfully reports what is said here today. The situation is thoroughly

unsatisfactory, and, in the ultimate, the House will decide what has to be done.
If, by any chance, any Minister of Transport were so misguided as to attempt to use his powers over the head of the House of Commons, the House would be bound to take action. I cannot see any Government being returned who embarked on the large-scale closures which are now threatened. Dr. Beechingis doing his job well, in accordance with his terms of reference, but his terms of reference will not do. Hon. and right hon. Members are the ultimate authority here, and the people would soon throw out the party which closed railway lines on this scale.
The remedy is so easy. Stop handing out industrial development certificates like tracts. Stop all the office building concentrated in London and the South. Every manufacturer and all those who sell consumer goods, pills, neck ties, boots and shoes, clothing and the rest want to crowd into the market in the South, because they pay only delivery costs. Transport costs are negligible. We are being made slaves. We are creating communities of ants.
Let any hon. Member who does not accept what I say go out of this self-contained place in which we spend so much time and look at London in the rush hours, between 7 and 9.30 a.m. and between 4.45 and 7 p.m. I see it. I make a point of doing so. I remember what a pleasant place London was when I came here in 1912. The underground railway, the tube and the buses were running and invariably—except for the occasional exceptional time—one got a seat. Today, one can hardly find a strap to hang on to.
The remedy is in our hands. We meet here day after day and night after night, discussing all kinds of matters which have not anywhere near the size of this problem. There are millions of people still coming to swell the population of the overcrowded centres of the South. We must call a halt.

1.6 p.m.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: I wish to raise a special point, but it may, perhaps, be useful for someone from England to add a word to the eloquent orations which we have had from north of the Border. On Tuesday


last, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice), who is a very moderate man and well informed, said that he thought that the creation of the Central African Federation by the Conservative Government in face of the opposition of the African population of the territories had been a monumental folly. In the same class is the policy of the Beeching Report.
None of us blames Dr. Beeching. We all know that he was not allowed to make a scientific study. It is said that his Report represents the first real study ever made of our railway system. In my opinion, having studied these matters for a long time, as the Minister knows, the Report of the British Transport Commission for 1952 and the plans put forward by Lord Robertson in 1955 were both much more scientific studies of the railway situation than the Beeching Report.
I remember very well that, within a fortnight of the Minister taking his present office, his Parliamentary Secretary said, during an Adjournment debate that, of course, the railways must contract and we must have a much smaller railway system in future. What a fantastic proposition, if one considers for a moment, as the Government always tell us, that our standard of living is to rise by 100 per cent. over the next 20 years, that travel will more than double and that goods transport will more than double.
Of course, the Minister loves road transport. We know that. In my constituency we have a little experience of what road transport means today. Forty million tons of coal per annum are going on the roads. Every working hour, from Monday at 10 a.m. to Friday at 5 p.m., according to the chief constable's report, 240 lorries pass through Derby. That is four lorries a minute, each carrying 10 tons, and each pouring out diesel fumes up the hill over which they go. This is a very serious grievance to the people of Derby.
I am concerned specially with the railway closures proposed in Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire and the objections which have been made at the T.U.C.C. hearings there. Up to May this year, if my information is correct—and I think it is—340 branch lines and 4,000 miles of track had been closed. These

massive closures have saved the railways less than 2d. in the £—under 1 per cent. of their costs. They have been very costly to the nation, and no official estimate has been made and no account taken of this. Not least costly has been the grave inconvenience and discomfort caused to multitudes of people who used to travel by rail and still wish to do so.
It is proposed to close a further 5,000 miles of our lines. The Notts and Derbyshire branch lines are part of them. One closure in the Notts and Derby area to which strong objection has been made is that of the line from Friargate Station, Derby, to Victoria Station, Nottingham. Hearings were held a few weeks ago, in October. The objectors included the Derby County Borough Council, the Ilkeston Town Council, this Derby area trades union council, the Midland region of the National Union of Mineworkers, the North-East Derbyshire Rural District Council, the Stanley and Cossill Parish Councils, the Nottinghamshire County Council and a host of other councils, organisations, trade and commercial interests and schools.
I have been able to study only the newspaper reports of those hearings, but, on that evidence and on a great deal of other evidence which I have heard, I support everything which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) said so well when he opened the debate about the nature of the hearings when a T.U.C.C. meets to hear objections to a closure. I agree with what he said about the financial evidence which is given to the committee. I have had a copy of that in the case which concerns me, and it is fantastically inadequate. I agree with what he said about considerations concerning general economic development. I thought that his example of the new towns in Scotland was particularly telling. I agree with what he said about the definition of hardship. In view of the nature of T.U.C.C. hearings, I agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, last summer, namely, that the consultation with those who object to closures is the sort of consultation that a condemned man gets when he is asked what he wants for breakfast before they hang him.
As I have said, I wish to raise a special point. I tried to get the record


of the hearings before the East Midlands T.U.C.C. on the closure of the line from Friargate Station, Derby to Victoria Station, Nottingham. The secretary and chairman of the committee treated me with the greatest courtesy. We exchanged a number of letters. However, they said that they could not send me a copy of the proceedings at the hearings. They said that it would be misleading if I had it, because I should also have to have a copy of the objections which had been put in, and that could not be given to me. Therefore, I had to depend entirely on what appeared in the Derby Evening Telegraph and the Derby Advertiser.
I think it utterly wrong that Members of Parliament should not have the full evidence on which such important public decisions are made. If it is important to me and to the people of Derby to know the full case, how much more important must it be to my right hon. and hon. Friends in Scotland?
I submit to the Minister that a T.U.C.C, with its present resources and staff, is unable to make the full record that is needed. He should make it his business to ensure that every T.U.C.C. is given professional help in making a full transcript of everything that is said at the hearing and in putting into print the objections which are made, which should be freely available to members of local borough councils, to bodies like trades councils, to Members of Parliament and to others interested in a responsible way in the decisions which the Minister has to make.
The present practice is utterly undemocratic and is open to the gravest objection. It is a monstrous abuse of Parliamentary procedure that a Minister should make such decisions without people having the evidence which they need on which to judge his actions.

1.16 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin: It has been rightly said this morning that the fundamental problem in the Highlands of Scotland is the lack of industry. I am sure that the Minister agrees with that. The trouble confronting the Scottish people—and again I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman recognises this—is that if railways, which are essential to industry, are closed, the

industrial position in the Highlands will be made even worse than it is.
I want to take up a particular example. If there are to be growth points in the Scottish Highland area, as a sequel to the new plan for Central Scotland, then Inverness, Thurso and Wick are the obvious places for them. Yet, with that knowledge in the right hon. Gentleman's possession, it is now proposed to close the Inverness, Wick and Thurso railway line. Such an action would destroy the very basis of the type of industrial planning which the Government propose for Central Scotland.
I do not wish to interrupt the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, but I should like them to listen carefully to what I propose to say. The fundamental danger of the new plan for growth points in Central Scotland and its development is that it is based on the idea that there will be wealth created in that area. As a result, a part of that wealth will be squeezed up to the Highlands. That plan cannot work if the transport facilities in the area are reduced or taken away. The idea of growth points in Central Scotland has the additional danger that it will not necessarily send wealth into the Highlands. It will simply attract labour from the Highlands into Central Scotland, which will further depopulate an area which we want to keep alive.
There is historical proof of that fact. The city to which I belong, Glasgow, was a great growth point 100 years ago. Because of that, and because of the investment poured into the area, thousands of people were attracted to Glasgow. Wealth did not flow into the Highlands. This policy did not help Highland development in any way. Labour was attracted to the City of Glasgow, and the Highlands were depopulated while wealth increased in Central Scotland.
These are the sort of problems which we must face and which the Government should be facing now. It is important that they should be planning, not for areas, but for overall development, industrial and otherwise, in the United Kingdom.
I will be as brief as a Scotsman can be in circumstances of this nature, but I want to emphasise one or two points made by my hon. Friend. The first concerns the nature of the opposition


which has been generated to the Government's suggestions about railway closures. First, there is the Highlands Panel, which has the general care of the Highlands in its hands—and which objects. Secondly, the Scottish Council for Development and Industry, a body which handles Scottish development, industrially and commercially, objects. Thirdly, the Lord Lieutenant of Inverness-shire, Lord McDonald, who voices the overall interest of Inverness-shire, also objects. The Co-operative Movement is protesting because of the danger to its commercial and domestic consumer interests.
This is taking place in an area which is predominantly Conservative and in which the Labour Party hold only one seat. All this opposition comes from that particularly Conservative part of Scotland As has been said, the opposition has been increased on the external side, as it were; because the internal machinery for expressing dissent and getting satisfaction from the Minister about his proposals—the transport users' consultative committee—has been shown to be completely unhelpful.
Faced with all these revolts in this area of Scotland, the Secretary of State has intimated that he will appoint a Highlands Transport Board to review the needs of the Highlands for transport services by land, sea and air. Will that body become a reality? Are we to have a Highlands Board to do a job which has been done already by a committee which reported earlier in the year? I refer to the Report of the Highlands Transport Inquiry, which covers rail transport, road transport, sea services and air services. All that it is necessary to do has been done already to cover the field which the Secretary of State has indicated merely to stifle objections and opposition on the eve of an election.
May I quote briefly from that Report which was issued in the spring of this year dealing with transport services in the Highlands of Scotland? I ask the right hon. Gentleman to listen carefully to what the Report says, because he is one of the Ministers who sponsored it. Referring to transport services of all kinds in Scotland, this is what is said:
This system is inadequate for present traffic in summer and will become increasingly so in the years that lie ahead, particularly as regards the remaining single width roads which run from the main system to Mallaig, the Kyle of

Lochalsh and Ullapool and as regards the main approach to the Highlands from the West of Scotland.
The Report goes further and says:
It cannot be too frequently stated that if the Highland road system is to catch up with the development of road transport, and still more if road transport is to expand to fill the volume left by any contraction of rail transport which the Minister proposes, then substantial capital expenditure is needed on these main roads and at a much higher rate of progress and investment than is contemplated at the moment.
No greater condemnation, I suggest, could be made than is contained in this Report of the transport services of that part of Scotland. And yet, merely to buy time, we are told that there is to be another Report on the Highlands transport system. Surely it is a waste of time. The one thing which the Minister can do this morning which would be more useful than any reports would be to say that he will abandon the Beeching proposals so far as they relate to the Highlands of Scotland.

1.25 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): Obviously, there are many misconceptions about the procedure for rail closures. The speeches which have been made today show that the subject needs explaining again, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) for giving me tie opportunity to do so.
There are two groups of problems. First, the ordinary man wants to know, "How will this affect me? What alternatives are there? Shall I still be able to get to my work, to the shops, or to my holiday resort?" Secondly, there are questions which concern mainly the Government and local authorities—how this will affect the roads and road traffic, the prospects for the development of the area, defence plans and so on. The closure procedure provides for the consideration of both aspects.
I will deal, first, with the position as it affects this individual. The procedure should, in the first place, see that he knows how he will be affected by it. Secondly, it should give him an opportunity to ledge an objection. Thirdly, it should see that he can present his case fully and have it fully considered. The closure machinery meets these three points—and I want to stress that. First, it should le people know what is going


to happen. The Railways Board has to publish advance information on closures in accordance with directions which I have given it under Section 54 of the Transport Act, 1962. This gives ample advance warning. Most of the closures now being considered were published in the Beeching Report in March, so that plenty of notice has been given.
But when the Board wishes to go ahead it must give notice in accordance with Section 56(7). This, first, tells people what they need to know, such as the details of the services to be closed, alternative bus services available, extra bus services to be provided, and how to lodge objections; and, secondly, is published where people can see it, in the local newspapers and on the stations which people use—if, in fact, they use those stations.
When the notice is published, anyone who uses the line may lodge an objection. I repeat, "anyone". He has seven weeks in which to do it from the first appearance of the notice of closure. If there is one objection— indeed, if there is only one objection—the closure cannot take place without my consent, and the full procedure is put in motion. When I say "anyone", I mean anyone. The effective first petition in one case has been lodged by a 10-year-old boy who goes by train to Pitlochry for his music lessons on a Saturday. This may be the only objection in this case. But it is just as effective and will be just as carefully considered as an objection from a county council.
I turn to the alternative services. One of the things which matters most to the present user of a rail service is the alternative service. When they advertise a closure, the railways say what alternative services they think will be available. One of the most important parts of the report of a transport users consultative committee is that which deals with these services. If someone is told that his railway line will be closed, his first reaction may be "Don't do it"; but his second reaction may be, "How do I get from A to B if there is no train?" That is what interests him most— getting from A to B if A, the station on his line, is to be closed.
Hon. Members opposite often say that there ought to be a comprehen-

sive transport plan before any railway lines are closed. The hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter) has gone as far as anybody. Not only does he want the whole of rail, road, air and sea services looked at comprehensively, but I understand that he wants to take into account hovercraft as well, and also the laying of pipelines. That is of no use to the man actually using the railway service; he wants to know how to get from A to B. That is when the T.U.C.C. gets down to great detail, on how to get from A to B. If the man learns that a pipeline is being built in Birmingham or London, that will not help him to get from A to B.

Mr. Millan: rose—

Mr. Marples: I am sorry, but I hope that I shall not be interrupted, because we have taken up a lot of time already.
Getting from A to B is what T.U.C.C.s are interested in. They consist of persons who give their services voluntarily and most of them are appointed after consultation with a wide variety of local interests. I should like to pay a tribute to the way they have tackled their very heavy volume of work and for the immense assistance they have given to me, though their careful and detailed examination of every closure.
Questions have been asked in the House today, and elsewhere about their functions and procedure. Why do they not conduct their business on more formal and judicial lines? Why do they not allow objectors to cross-question the Board's representatives on the justification of a proposal? Why are they not supplied with the fullest possible estimates of the financial effects of proposals? Why do they not consider all the factors in a case such as its effect on local employment or the location of industry?
These questions can be answered only when we realise what the committee's job is and why. It is not their job to say whether a closure proposal is commercially justified. That decision rests firmly with the Board. It is not their job to say whether the closure should take place. This can only be done by someone who has all the facts available. The facts would include the cost of investment


in new roads, the risk of road congestion, plans for industrial or housing development, the needs of defence, the possibility of establishing new towns, and many others. On these points, in general, the facts are known. They are available to the central and local government. What is needed is to assess the relative importance of all the various factors. This is not a job for a committee representing users. It is a job which only the Government can do. It must be done by my colleagues and myself. We cannot pass on the responsibility to anyone else, and do not seek to do so.
What, then, is the job of the T.U.C.Cs.? It is, first, to hear and assess the evidence of hardship to people who will be personally affected by the closure, secondly, to consider whether any alternative services are needed, and, thirdly, to make proposals, if they wish, for such services. For this purpose all objectors have a chance of making their case to the committee, and this applies to those who cannot afford legal representation as well as to those who can.
The informal procedure makes the committee accessible to those who might be afraid to appear before a more formal one. A schoolboy appeared before the London committee last week. And why not? If he and his friends use the trains they have as much right to be heard as anyone else. The schoolboy was most assiduous in his work; there are 450 regular users of the train and he produced a petition with 1,000 signatures.
Another question is: why do not the committees get detailed financial information? Why cannot objectors challenge the Board's estimates of savings it will make? The committees do get some financial figures. They get these because they have asked for them. They find it helpful to have some idea of the sums involved as background knowledge and to help them avoid wasting effort on considering in detail alternative services whose cost would be far greater than the cost of the service they replaced.
The provision of these figures is essentially a matter between the Railways Board and the T.U.C.Cs., but in view of the interest shown in the subject

by hon. Members and others I decided to ask an eminent accountant to examine the situation. I took the advice of the President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, and, as the House knows, on his recommendation I asked Sir William Carrington to do the job. His report is available in the Library.
Sir William's main conclusion is that the figures currently supplied by the Railways Board are appropriate for the purposes of the consultative committees and are compiled on bases which are well founded and sound in principle. I should like to interpose here and say that I am sorry that the hon. Member for Craigton, who is a chartered accountant himself, saw fit to accuse Sir William Carrington of "muddled thinking"—I say muddled thinking in quotes—in making his report. He is an eminent chartered accountant appointed on the recommendation of the President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants. He is impartial and has professional skill.
The committees have accepted his findings, but the figures are not open to question at the T.U.C.Cs.' hearings and the reason for this is twofold. First, because it is not the committees' job—

Mr. Millin: rose—

Mr. Marples: I am sorry, but the hon. Member had a very fair hearing and other hon. Members have taken a lot of time, and I think that we must remember there are other subjects to discuss.

Mr. Millan: I wanted only to raise a point about Sir William Carrington.

Mr. Marples: This is because it is not the committees' job, as I have explained, to examine the Railway Board's case for the closure and, secondly, because the figures are only intended as background information. They are not relevant to the committees' main job of assessing hardship. For the same reason committees do not normally allow objectors to cross-examine the railway representative about the figures, but they are normally allowed to question him about matters of detail within the committees functions such as details of the proposed closure, alternative services, statistics of the use of the line, the number of passengers joining and alighting,


and so on. But the Railways Board has to give me, as the responsible Minister, the fullest available financial information before I reach my decision.
I have dealt with the T.U.C.Cs' job and the way they carry it out. I have explained how the other information which may be relevant reaches me from local authorities, from my colleagues in the Government and from the Railways Board. All this is brought together in my Department. It is considered with the greatest care and in the greatest detail. I wish that I could show some of my files to hon. Members who have expressed doubt about this procedure. How do we actually go about it? First, a schedule is drawn up showing all the features of the case, including the details of the service to be closed, the use made of it, the existing alternative services, and those proposed by the Board, or by the T.U.C.C., the number and nature of the objections, the proceedings before the T.U.C.C. and its findings, representations on subjects other than hardship made by local authorities or others, the views of hon. Members who have written to me or attended and spoken at the hearing, a note of points drawn to my attention by other Departments, and a report on the effect of the closure on roads and road traffic by my divisional road engineer, or the chief road engineer in Scotland.
This schedule is considered by a working party of officials of all the Departments affected, and the various sides of my own Department. Where closures in Scotland and Wales are concerned the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister for Welsh Affairs will be represented. The working party considers all aspects of the case. If necessary, it gets additional information. Then it makes a recommendation to me.
When I receive the papers, they include advice from all the Departments on the implications of the proposal as well as the views of the T.U.C.C. If necessary, I can then consult my colleagues further, as I always consult the Secretary of State for Scotland on Scottish cases. Then I have available to me a vast amount of information, but

it may happen that in one or two cases—and this possibly happens mostly in conurbations—I still have not enough to make a final judgment. In that case I will commission further studies or hold up the case until the results of a transport survey are available. But I cannot accept that all closures in an area should be held up just because a transport survey is being started.
Some cases are quite clear-cut. There are lines with few passengers and vast losses, which we must get rid of. There are others of no use as railways, but whose routes are of value. Here, we can close the service while retaining the land. In each case I will try to find the right solution, but the taxpayers should not have to pay for services which cannot be of any real use. As a railway man said in a recent letter to the Daily Telegraph, it is not the Minister of Transport who is closing many of these lines. It is not even Dr. Beeching. It is the
massive, cheerful, and indomitable refusal of the public to use them
which is closing the lines.
I apologise for having gone rather wider than some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Craigton, but it is necessary to cover the whole range of their duties on closure proposals to show, first, how the T.U.C.Cs fit into the picture and, secondly, how the functions given them under the Transport Act, 1962, are the right functions, and that they have been appropriately exercised.
The committees concentrate on the hardship which may be caused to the individual user and on what really matters to the user: how he is to get from A to B. Will there be a bus? Will it connect with the main line train? Will it get him to his work on time? I rely upon these committees for advice on all these aspects of a case. Nine times out of ten I accept, with little change, if any, the committees' ideas of the alternative services required. Those services go into the schedule of conditions to my consent—sometimes pages of conditions.
That means that the rail service cannot be closed until the bus services are running. But the other factors which have to be considered are the province of central and local government. It is like our policy for transport—each bit


does the job for which it is best suited. The result of all these arrangements is the presentation of a co-ordinated case to me, as the responsible Minister, for decision.
This does not mean rubber-stamping. I treat each case on its merits. Only this week I announced my decision on the Woodside-Sanderstead closure. In the circumstances of this case, closure could not be the right policy at this moment. So we are keeping the line open for three years. Our policy will continue to be to treat each case strictly on its merits, but relate it to the wider structure of planning and development; and, above all, to take account of the needs of the individual user.
I have been in this House a long time, and I can assure hon. Members that the Parliamentary Secretary and I examine the proposals with infinite care and attention to detail and literally spend hours on them. If we are not satisfied, we send them back for more information. Some of the things that have been said today show that there is widespread misunderstanding—Ishall not go further than saying that. We have had accusations that the Government are closing this or that service. But these are proposals made by the Railways Board. Dr. Beeching cannot effect the closure of a passenger line if one passenger objects. It has got to come to the Minister. I give great care and attention to detail, and I am quite satisfied myself that we are doing the job as well as it can possibly be done.

Mr. Millan: May I say one word, because the right hon. Gentleman would not allow me to interrupt, about the Carrington Report? Let me make it clear that I said that it was a muddled Report. I stand by that. But I was not, of course, accusing Sir William Carrington of professional incompetence. I was saying that he did not apply his mind to the question of what the functions of the committees were. That is where he goes wrong and where the Minister goes wrong as well.

Mr. Marples: It is on the record, and I do not want to argue it with the hon. Gentleman. I think that the phrase he used was "muddled thinking".

Mr. Millan: Yes.

Mr. Marples: I did not say that the hon. Gentleman accused him of professional incompetence, but that he accused an eminent chartered accountant of being muddled in his thinking.

1.45 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I shall not take up the time of the House for more than a few minutes, but there are two things which I should like to say. First, I do not disagree with the Minister in his definition of the duties and responsibilities of the transport users' consultative committees. Those duties were laid down in the 1962 Act, and we on this side of the House do not object to those definitions as they are stated. But there is one point in this connection that I should like to put to him.
There has been, as he is aware, very strong feeling in some parts of the country that the figures put forward to the transport users' consultative committees concerning some of the lines to be closed do not take into account various factors which should have been taken into account, and that the case for closing these particular lines is therefore weak. I agree that it is not the duty of the transport users' consultative committees to consider the calculations. They cannot do it; they are not equipped to do so. But what is worrying many of us is whether arguments to this effect will be fully considered by the Minister when a proposal comes to him for final decision.
If there is a strong case, which some of us may have—or anyone may have—that the figures respecting a certain closure are unjustifiably pessimistic, and should be revised in the light of other factors, will that argument be taken fully into account by the Minister when he comes to make his decision?
I think that the right hon. Gentleman is aware—if not, he should be aware—of the great anxiety throughout the country about the major closures which are contemplated under the Beeching Report. I am not talking about small closures here or there, about which there may be very little difference of opinion, and which we do not oppose, but about those major closure proposals which have come to the transport users' consultative committees, and most of which are there now. For that reason the strong feeling which is held in the


areas concerned has not been reflected in this House because the time has not come for that. The Minister has not yet become responsible for decisions.
But I want to warn him that when the time comes, when these proposals come before the Minister and, therefore, they become a ministerial responsibility and he is answerable to the House, public opinion will be reflected very vigorously indeed in the views expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, many of whom hold the view we expressed at an earlier stage, that the proposed closures go far too wide, and that Dr. Beeching was not able—and we fear that the Minister, by inclination, will not want to—to take sufficiently into account the economic and social consequences the closures will bring about.
Today, we have had a preliminary skirmish about some of these proposals, but when the time comes—it may not be far distant—I am certain that we shall hear in this House very much more vigorous and stronger objections, and on more formal occasions, to some of the large-scale closures which are proposed and which, we fear, the Minister of Transport will quite improperly agree to.

FILM INDUSTRY

1.46 p.m.

Mrs. Eirene White: I make no apology for asking the House now to turn its attention to another area of our activities—to the British film production industry.
I have two things to say at the outset. First, while I personally have no complaint whatever to make about the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary is to reply— because I understand the normal convention of this House, which is that the junior Minister, generally speaking, replies on the Adjournment— nevertheless this is not an invariable rule, as we have seen in the debate which has just concluded. I think that many people in the film industry will be deeply disappointed that the Secretary of State himself has not found it possible to be present, more particularly as it was he who received two recent deputations. I think that they would naturally have assumed that they would have a public reply from the Secretary of State today, which he was not, of course, in a position to give them at the time he received them at the Ministry.
Secondly, I have a personal point to make. I am a member of the Cinematograph Films Council which advises the Secretary of State, and I was one of the independent members of the subcommittee which advised the Films Council. I need hardly say that what I say today is entirely personal and should in no way whatever be taken to be representing the views of either the Films Council or that sub-committee.
However, it seemed to me that Parliament ought to discuss the affairs of the industry if only because at present we are all too acutely aware of the difficulties and confusion which exist. We must all have the greatest sympathy, particularly at this time—at Christmas—with the very many men and women in the industry who are either out of work or under notice that their jobs are likely to be terminated in the very near future. None of us can regard this with equanimity. The proportion of workers concerned is very substantial. It seems to me that, if only for their sake, we are entitled to ask for time to discuss the film production industry.
The industry is suffering from a very severe crisis of confidence. We have had crises in the film industry before, as some of us who are present are well aware. We had debates of great fervour some years ago when the exihibitors were the ones most concerned and we were trying to soften the stony hearts of successive Chancellors of the Exchequer about the Entertainments Duty. But in some way the present crisis is deeper and more worrying. Although one had the greatest possible individual sympathy for many of the exhibitors who were forced out of business, one felt that to some extent they were the creatures of circumstance in the capitalist jungle. Today we are faced with a crisis of confidence among the producers, and this touches us much more deeply because it is not simply a matter of commercial success and failure.
This is a matter of the expression of British ideas, of the emotions of the people, and of artistic creation. I feel very deeply concerned to find that the anxieties in the industry now so closely affect people who have been responsible for the renaissance of British film production. What is worrying is that the very people who have brought such renown to British films in the last 10 years are the most anxious about the future.
I say most emphatically that everyone who is concerned with the film industry has been extremely proud of the immense improvement in the quality of British film production over the past 30 years or so. It is something which gives us very considerable pride and for which we can take great credit. The contrast of the very recent successes, and continuing successes, of British films with the despondency which now prevails seems extremely unfortunate, and it is something that we should do all we can to obviate.
I am sorry to say that the crisis in the industry has also led to a certain amount of bad blood. We now have a position where personalities in the industry are writing letters even to The Times denigrating the efforts of one another. This also is serious because it will make any solutions, in an industry which is beset by difficulties anyway, even more difficult.
The background against which we must consider the problems which face the industry is, frankly, one of an industry which has been in decline numerically, although, as I say, the quality of its product on has on the whole greatly improved. The Guardian the other day gave some figures, which I believe to be correct, pointing out that in 1952 the earnings of the industry were £110 million in round figures whereas in 1962 the figure dropped to £59 million, which in terms of the money values of 10 years ago would have represented no more than £41 million. By any standards that is an enormous contraction. The seats sold in 1952 numbered 1,300,000, while in 1962 the number was 435,000. These are facts to which no one can close his eyes. When an industry has had such a sharp decline as that, any difficulties inherent in it are likely to be intensified. There is no doubt that that is what has been happening in the British film industry.
The complaints which have been brought before those of us who are concerned with this have been two-fold. As one effect of the decline, it is said that films which in earlier years might at least just have paid their way are now not viable commercially, whereas the more successful films are more successful than ever. "To him that hath shall be given" is nowhere better exemplified than in the British film industry at present.
This causes great difficulties and controversy as to methods of showing films and the position of independent exhibitors and so on. It is difficult to suggest any simple remedy for this. The subcommittee of the Films Council has made a number of detailed proposals to deal with some of the difficulties, but I do not think it would be very helpful to our general debate to go into those rather technical details today.
The major complaint is about the monopolistic tendencies in the film industry which have been evident for very many years past and about which we had reports some 20 years ago. The decline in the general size of the industry has intensified the monopoly.
I think that the House is aware of the general background. There are two major circuits in the British film industry—Rank and A.B.C. They are far


more than retail outlets. Both organisations are vertical combinations and concerned with what one would call in any other business the retail, the wholesale, the manufacturing and the financing operations of film production. By and large they do not compete with one another. In the jargon of the film world, they are a "duopoly". They have spheres of interest. They divide the territory between themselves. Each has in tow a number of major distributors which rent their films regularly to either one or the other of the circuits. There is no real competition. There is only one firm which even attempts to rent to both equally, and that is British Lion, about which I should like to say more in another context.
Everyone who knows anything about the industry realises that there is virtually no competition between the two great circuits for films, and although when one looks at the statistics one might say, "How can one pretend that there is a monopoly in cinemas in this country when the circuits own only about a quarter of the total number of cinemas still open?", statistics, as usual, mislead. When one looks at the capacity and earning power of those cinemas one finds that they account for about 70 per cent, of the total earning capacity, and, in particular, they have the overwhelming position in the London area, where so much of the takings come from.
This position of monopoly, which is undoubted, has its good points as well as its bad. One must be fair. There is no doubt that both the Rank Organisation and A.B.C. have financed British film production, either their own or other people's in the past. They can fairly say, "We have shown a great many films which, commercially, were not particularly attractive, but we felt we were obliged to do so, to take the bad with the good." They can rightly say that many producers would have been far worse off had it not been for the existence of the circuits and for their finance.
Notwithstanding that, and giving all credit where credit is undoubtedly due, the fact remains that among some of the best and most original of our film producers there is the greatest possible reluctance to feel that they are dependent

exclusively on one or other of these two circuits for their well-being. If one is dealing with people of creative talent these feelings are of considerable consequence.
The immediate cause of the difficulties with which the industry is confronted and of the ill-feeling which, I am afraid, has been aroused, was the assertion by a number of independent film producers that their films have been held up, that they have not been booked by the circuits and that, consequently, money invested in them is tied up and has not become available for ploughing back into future production. This has led, it is claimed, to the situation in which, for example, at Shepperton Studio there is no film on the floor and none in prospect for at least three months, while another studio is closed completely.
The independent producers concerned say that they are quite unable to make any plans for the future or obtain any finance for fresh production. I repeat that this applies not only to those who are not, perhaps, of the very first rank in film production, but also to those who have a very fine reputation.
The facts have been bandied about by the various interests concerned in such a way that it is extremely difficult for outsiders and even for some people inside the industry to know exactly where the truth lies. There are arguments about the quality of the films which have not obtained early bookings. There have been arguments about their profitability and about the wisdom or desirability of showing a number of American films which are, in the opinion of those who should know, at least no better than some of the British films not yet shown.
Various suggestions have been made about how one could clear this backlog of British films, and, what is even more important, of restoring confidence sufficiently to get the production process going again. As is well known, it has been suggested that a quota of 50 per cent. should be laid down for the showing of British films instead of the present quota of 30 per cent. At present 30 per cent. of British films have to be shown by the major circuits and those in favourable exhibition positions. But the actual


proportion of British films played by the major circuits is already considerably above the quota—about 45 per cent. in the case of Rank, about 50 per cent. in the case of A.B.C. and, I understand, about 43 per cent. for Grenada.
The Cinematograph Films Council discussed this recently and, by a fairly close vote, decided not to recommend that the quota should be raised. There are arguments for and against. I think that raising the quota would bring only a temporary palliative. I do not believe that it would really solve the problems of the industry.
The real anxiety is not about what films are to be shown in 1964, for they are mostly already made or in the making Indeed, one of the depressing facts of the situation is that there are a large number of British films on the stocks already and people are asking when time is to be found to show them. Unless producers know what proportion of British films is likely to be shown in 1965, production is not likely to get off the ground in 1964 and finance is not likely to be forthcoming.
While I appreciate the difficulties of increasing the statutory quota for 1965, or of the Secretary of State saying in advance that he will do so, it might be a gesture if the two big circuits were voluntarily to indicate that they would play no less than the proportions they are playing already of British films. Why should they not do this? Why should more than half the films shown in this country be from overseas?
What would people say if more than half the books sold in the country were by foreign authors and could be bought in only two chains of shops? It is not unreasonable, when we have people waiting to make British films, for the two big circuits to say voluntarily that, in 1965, they will play at least as many British films as they are playing now.
This would, I believe at least help us to break this log jam of films at the moment, but, of course, there are wider considerations and although it would be very valuable it would still only be a temporary boost to confidence in the industry. Many people believe that the present position, with its duopoly, is unhealthy and that the independent producers will not feel able to give of

their best while they are at the mercy of the judgment of only two big groups for the booking of films.
There was once a third circuit. It was in the Rank Organisation and we felt that it was not entirely convincing, as a third circuit, but it was nominally such. What the independent producers and others, including the unions in the industry, are concerned about is that there should be some third force. I am not using the words "third circuit" because we must be realistic and recognise that, with the contraction of the industry, to establish now a third circuit comparable in size with the existing two major circuits would be very difficult.
But if one could have a third booking force which to some extent overlapped the two circuits, we might meet the demands of the independent producers. They would feel that at least they had a chance to prove whether they were right orwrong—a chance they do not always have now.
We could have an organisation which could, for instance, get the best playing times in the year— which they do not always get at the moment— for independent films. If distribution were so organised that some of the Rank and A.B.C. cinemas, with some of the independents, including, I hope, the smaller circuits, could be used for the showing of films which, to the booking organisation, seemed to be the best, we would avoid the genuine objection to a third circuit that it would diminish the possible total earnings of the top winning films, which, of course, would be to the detriment of British film production.
I believe, therefore, that we must devise a system whereby the top winner could still take as much money as it does now on one of the circuits but that, nevertheless, when not playing a top winner concurrently there was a chance of getting a good return for one of the independently produced films. I fail to see, however, how such an organisation as this could come out of the existing industry without some Government guarantee. We have the examples of the National Film Finance Corporation and other devices in which Treasury money was used and from which, surprisingly, Treasury money is now coming out again. With the present state of the film industry, I see no possibility of


such a project without some outside intervention.
I cannot see why the Government should not be able to give financial backing on the exhibition side in the same way as they have in the past on the production side. I do not suggest that the body to organise such a third force is necessarily the N.F.F.C., because in a way that would be setting up another vertical combination, which might also be undesirable. However, it appears to me that we will not get what is necessary for the health of the industry without at least a Treasury guarantee and probably some money in support.
Whether we would get agreement from the circuits to a voluntary arrangement of this kind is not for me to say. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary is prepared to say what the Government would do if there were no voluntary agreement. However, if we embarked on this course, we would meet what has been a continuing source of frustration and discontent in the production industry. I say this at this moment especially, because today we have been told of another fact which will very much affect what may be called the psychology of the independent producers, namely, that the N.F.F.C. has bought out British Lion from the other directors. We very much wish to know—and I trust that we shall be told today—what the plans for British Lion are.
British Lion has been a buffer between the independent producers and the vertical combines. I do not pretend that everything that British Lion has done has been necessarily unimpeachable, but, on the other hand, it has been responsible for some of the best, most successful, most original and most distinguished British films. I am certain that if British Lion were allowed to go out of existence, or to be sold to private interests, the cloud of despondency already over the independent producers would become dark indeed.
Therefore, although we were gratified to learn that the N.F.F.C. has exercised its option and that British Lion for the time being is to be entirely in public hands, the statements by Sir Nutcombe Hume and Mr. John Terry as reported in today's Press leave some big question marks. What is to be the posi-

tion of the existing directors, who have been a successful team? It is true that they have done much better financially from the bargain which was made than might have been supposed some years ago. On this side of the House, we sharply criticised the terms of their original contract, but a lot of water has flowed under the bridges since then and we do not propose to go over past history, although some of our criticisms were fully justified.
We are now more concerned about the future of British Lion. The suggestion that British Lion is to be sold to some private interests, unspecified, is something which we on this side of the House are not prepared to countenance, and we ought to make that clear. We are, therefore, entitled to be told what the proposals for British Lion are, how its independence is to be safeguarded and how it is to continue to improve the service which it has been able to render to independent film production in this country.
I have already taken more time than I intended, but it is only right that we should have these considerations before us. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us the Government's views on a third circuit, rather, a third booking force—it is difficult to get out of the old term—and on British Lion. There is a minor but important point concerned with the hold-up of films, and this is the statutory duty on companies not to book films more than six months in advance. This was inserted in the cinematograph legislation precisely for the purpose of ensuring that there was room for films from independent producers. While I have no doubt that the law has been observed in the letter, it appears not to have been observed in the spirit. I should like some comments from the hon. Gentleman on that point. I hope that before we finish the debate we shall be able to send a message of much better cheer to the British film production industry.

2.16 p.m.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: The hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) has done the House a great service by allowing us to have this preliminary debate on the crisis now facing the film industry. I say


"preliminary debate", because the crisis is deeper and more worrying than any which has yet faced the industry and ought to be the subject of a full debate in the House before irrevocable decisions are taken. It is not sufficient merely to have a rather cramped adjournment debate of one and a half hours.
I profoundly agree with the hon. Lady's analysis of the present situation. The hon. Lady has considerable knowledge of the industry, and has done great service to it, and has been an independent member of the Cinematograph Films Council. I do not pretend to rival her knowledge. The problems of the industry have only recently come to my attention because of my friendship with some independent British film producers.
The hon. Lady herself was not able to say what I want to say about the Cinematograph Films Council. She was at pains to show that she was speaking as an individual and not in any way representing the views of the Council. I hope that she will agree that the Council was originally composed so that it should represent the views of producers, makers of films, renters, distributors, the trade unions, and the independents to hold a balance. If all had been able to speak in this proportion without any interests intervening, this would have been a reasonable body from which the Government could have taken advice.
However, because of the dominance of the large circuits, the two combines mentioned by the hon. Lady, and because of their vertical interest, it has now become almost impossible for many members of the Council to speak in a sense opposite to the views of the circuits. No one blames anybody on the Council or casts any aspersion on them for that reason, but the Government should be wary of the advice of the Council because of its dominance by the two circuit interests.
The hon. Lady referred to correspondence in The Times. In that newspaper this morning, there is a letter from Mr. Robert Clark, of A.B.C. The hon. Lady might like to know that I have been in touch with Mr. David Kingsley, of British Lion. For greater accuracy, I wrote down his views. Mr. Clark's

letter calls upon independent producers to publish statistics, covering the last four years, of the films that they have produced. He asked them to name their films and to state the cost, and so on. Mr. Kingsley told me:
We at British Lion shall be very happy to make this information available on all our films.
We will do this through our Trade Association, the Federation of British Film Makers—provided that all other producers who are members of the Federation and the British Film Producers Association agree to do the same.
But we do not see why the provision of this important information should be restricted to independent producers. We hope that the two major cinema owning combines and the American companies will provide the same information about their British productions.
In this gathering of statistics, cinema owners must also give information about their average takings, running costs, amounts paid to producers in film hire and the amounts involved in ancillary sales of ice-cream, confectionery, cigarettes and advertising. Lack of statistics has been one of the constant problems of the film industry. Now is the moment at which they could be of vital help to the Government and the industry itself in finding solutions to its problems.
It seems a fair answer.
The hon Lady first spoke of the decline in the industry, and of that decline there can be no doubt. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Sir B. Craddock) has, unfortunately, lost his voice, but he is present. The Shepperton studios lie in his constituency, and my hon. Friend asks me to point out that at Shepperton— which is the only studio to carry or business for the last four years on a profitable basis—of the 53 most successful box office pictures in the last five years, 27 were British, only 10 were financed by the combine, and were made in my hon. Friend's constituency. He also asks me to say that in August the peak pay roll was 1,040. That has now been reduced to 510, and if this decline goes on it will be a very serious matter for his constituency—

Mr. Ronald Bell: I wish to say nothing to the detriment of Shepperton studios—I have known for some time that there were films made outside South Bucks.—but I would venture to join issue on my hon. and gallant Friend's use of the word "only". As I understand, the Pinewood studios, in my constituency, have also been operating at a profit.

Captain Orr: I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend—we are glad to see him here, too. I cannot vouch for what he says, but I will take his word for it.
The real root of the trouble is the domination of the industry by the circuits. The hon. Lady pointed out that although the actual ownership of cinemas does not amount to more than about one-third, about 41 per cent. of the cinema seats are owned by the two combines. That, as she herself pointed out, is not in itself a true picture, because London is the key. The London revenues account for about 30 per cent. of the United Kingdom gross, and if a producer cannot get a film shown on the London circuits he is not likely to get it shown anywhere else. It has to start in London. In 1961, the Rank Organisation accounted for 44 per cent. of the bookings of new films in London, and A.B.C. for 28 per cent., so that, between them, the two circuits controlled 72 per cent. of bookings. The plain truth is that two men in this country now decide whether or not a film shall be shown, and in an industry that is suffering in this way such a situation cannot be allowed to continue.
Although the hon. Lady suggested that voluntary arrangements might be entered into to provide either a third circuit, a limitation on the size of circuits for booking purposes, or the creation of a third force, it is not for us to suggest how this situation shall be remedied. That is for the Government to decide. Something must be done to induce more competition within the industry because, without it, the British film industry will disappear.
The hon. Lady touched on a possible analogy. The situation is rather like that which faces the newspapers. We are at present concerned about newspapers closing down, but when a newspaper closes down that is, at any rate, due to the free exercise of public demand. The public have a free choice whether they will read one newspaper rather than, say, the Daily Mirror or the Daily Express. But if the Daily Mirror and the Daily Express between them owned W. H. Smith & Sons, Ltd. and all the other retail outlets involved, and so operated that they had their newspapers prominently displayed and the others tucked in a corner wherever they could be fitted in,

that would be the complete analogy with the present position in the cinema industry. That cannot be allowed, and I should have thought that no Government could allow it to continue.
The one exception has been British Lion. The two combines now so act that if one refuses to take a film the other will not take it either, except in the case of those distributed by British Lion. That means that the whole future of British Lion is of immense importance in this matter—in fact, in many ways, it is the key to the situation.
Some of the independent producers saw some of my hon. Friends and myself in the House about a fortnight ago, and put to us this problem of the dominance of the circuits. We were impressed with their case, and decided to see my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade. He told us that he was very busy before Christmas, but that in January he would have the report of the Films Council and would not take any decision concerning the general future of the industry, the question of competition, the question of the quota, or any other suggestion that had been made, before receiving that advice, and before seeing us.
Judge of our surprise when, yesterday evening, we were told that this option had been exercised on behalf of the N.F.F.C. to take over the remaining shares in British Lion, and, in fact—although it is not the stated aim—to oust the present management. We at once asked some members of the present management to see us last night after the Division. I was horrified by their story, and perhaps I may be allowed to tell the House very briefly just what the story is.
As the House knows, British Lion had been suffering losses since the end of the war. In 1955, the N.F.F.C. took it over. It was still incurring losses in 1958, when the present management came into the business. Since then, it has repaid the £600,000 Government loan, has made a profit of £1½ million, and has, as the hon. Lady has said, produced some of the best British films we have since seen. It has provided an outlet for independent producers, and a nucleus of the third force for which the hon. Lady has pleaded.
On 27th November, the present management received some indication from the N.F.F.C. that it was considering exercising its option. That would be subject to the Board of Trade. The management was told in the strictest secrecy, but they did not take its seriously—perhaps they should have—because they could not see why, in a situation like this, with successful management and production, the Government should wish to alter the situation. They were anxious that Government finance should remain, and they did not see any reason for the change.
Judge of their surprise, when, on Friday, 13thDecember—last Friday—they received notice that the N.F.F.C. would exercise its option. At the same time they were told that if they wished to raise the necessary money they could buy the whole company back if they did so before 31st December.
This was clearly a completely derisory offer. It could not possibly have been expected that they would have done so. They were asked to find, within what was tantamount to one week— because of the Christmas holidays— £1 million to buy a company, in very great conditions of uncertainty within the industry, and when they were already pressing the Government to make some arrangements to provide competition in the industry. They said that they could not do so. But the offer was never intended to be accepted. I believe that it was completely derisory, and that the whole story is something of a scandal.
The hon. Lady asked an important question. I suggest that my hon. Friend should ask our mutual right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade to ask Sir Nutcombe Hume to see him, and to tell that deep displeasure has been expressed in the House of Commons about what has happened. He should ask Sir Nutcombe Hume, first, whether the offer made to the present management of BritishLion was intended to be accepted. If it was, he should be asked why a time limit fixed for 1st January. Why was not a reasonable time offered?
If the answer is that the offer was not intended to be accepted— and I do not think that it was—I should like to know what is the intention of the Government. Does the N.F.F.C. intend to

retain ownership and put in a new management? It has been said that it was intended to keep the present management for the time being, but members of the management have been asked to place their resignation at the disposal of the N.F.F.C. so that the members can be changed at any time. It is obvious that the N.F.F.G wants to get rid of the present management.
I suggest that this is a shabby manoeuvre, to get rid of the present management and to put in someone to run British Lion who is more amenable to the two circuits, or to the monopoly. I believe that we are likely to see a consortium of Tom, Dick and Harry with offices next door to Rank's. It will be all above board on the surface, but underneath there will be an influence which will see to it that British Lion does what it has been under pressure to do— align itself with one of the two circuits and so end competition in the industry for all time.
I hope that my hon. Friend will tell the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade that many of us are gravely concerned about the situation. If he cannot postpone the taking up of this option we shall view it as a breach of faith with us, whom he promised he would see before a final decision was reached. This possibility raises a wide issue, on which the House of Commons should have a chance of expressing its views in a full and proper debate before a final decision is taken.

Mr. Douglas Jay: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is very familiar with the facts of the situation. Does he suggest that Sir Nutcombe Hume had any consultations with the Board of Trade before taking this decision? Secondly—and I accept the facts that he has given—what does he think to be Sir Nutcombe Hume's motive in wishing to make British Lion more amenable to the two circuits?

Captain Orr: I am unable to answer the last question, because Sir Nutcombe Hume is not the sort of man whose motives are readily discernible. As for the first question, the N.F.F.C. had to have the sanction of the Board of Trade before it could exercise its option. I suggest that my hon. Friend may have failed to see the significance of the situation in the context of his promise


to improve the whole structure of the industry. I am telling my hon. Friend, who told us to look at the matter in the context of what he said, that if there were a change in the structure of British Lion it would be a breach of faith with us. What the film industry needs—I am sure that this will be agreed by all hon. Members—is an injection of some competition. It is not for us to say how; it is for the Government to find a way.

2.36 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Swingler: I know that you were worried about the timetable, Mr. Speaker, and I shall endeavour to be brief. The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) has raised some very serious issues, and has said that this is an urgent matter and that we should have a discussion in the House, since there is considerable State responsibility for the situation, so that we can consider the circumstances confronting us. Many people forecast a long time ago that with the contraction of the market and the decline in cinema admissions there would be a tendency for the cinema industry to be dominated by two main circuits.
We now have a monopoly position, with a handful of tycoons competing for control of the industry, with the danger of a complete collapse of independent production. We are faced with the question whether we want to maintain a healthy and expanding film production industry in Britain. I believe that the answer is "Yes". The next question is: can it be done by the ordinary operation of the law of supply and demand? The answer is "No".
Over the years we have seen that we must build up a considerable apparatus in order to maintain a healthy film industry and produce a variety of British films. That is why we have the British quota, the National Film Finance Corporation, and the statutory levy, It is quite clear that in present circumstances these things are jeopardised, and that in a short time our talented producers might disappear—either go abroad or go into some other industry. This is a very difficult business to maintain, and it is important that there should be continuity of employment and main-

tenance of staffs of talented technicians, artistes and so on.
Policy in the past has been based on the idea that we should have a film industry not merely for economic reasons—although economically, it has not been unsuccessful in the past—but also for the sake of art, science and so on. The instruments of the quota, the N.F.F.C. and the levy are in the hands of the Board of Trade and the Minister precisely to prevent a collapse of independent film production, and to given a stimulus to the circuits to show more British films.
It is therefore not all that wonderful that we should ask that half the films shown in British cinemas should be British. I never have thought that that was an excessive demand, and I believe that the N.F.F.C. has been wrong not to recommend that the quota should be increased. I hope that the Minister will urgently consider the possibility of this, even if it is only for a temporary period.
This quota instrument has been such an important one in the past in maintaining the market for the exhibition of British films, especially independent films, that it should be the weapon which the Minister should use to give the extra stimulus, and he should do it in conjunction with consultations with the managers of the circuits about the release position next year. That is the urgent matter now—to do something to speed up the release of already-produced British pictures next year.
It is not satisfactory that Mr. John Davies should judge whether the pictures are good or not. Let the public judge after having had an opportunity of seeing the pictures, and seeing them more rapidly. Then we shall know whether the pictures are good, bad or indifferent. It is not right for anyone to set himself up as a final arbiter of taste, entertainment value, and so on. Therefore, I think that the Secretary of State ought to use the quota instrument, and use it rapidly. Secondly, I think that he ought to take the immediate step of having consultations with the circuit managers and to request the speedier release of British pictures next year so that the studios can maintain the flow of employment and production.

2.42 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. David Price): I am aware that there are a number of hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House who would have liked to speak, but I understand that it would be for the convenience of the House if I were to reply now as there are other hon. Gentlemen who wish to speak on other matters in subsequent debates.
I hope that the hon. Gentlemen who would have liked to speak will, if they have any ideas on this subject, let me have them. I think that it would be discourteous to hon. Gentlemen who have come here today not to say this, but one has to consider other debates. I am also sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Sir B. Craddock) has lost his voice, but he might have been frustrated because of the difficulty of getting in to the debate.
The hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) raised the question of why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was not present. I think that she knows that my right hon. Friend already had a prior engagement before he knew that she had chosen this subject and that he was committed to going to South Wales, where he is at present.
It may help the House in considering this somewhat complex subject of films if I make it clear that in talking about films I shall be referring to films made primarily for exhibition in cinemas as distinct from those made for television or for instructional purposes. The basic fact which we have to face is that the number of cinema films which can be produced depends not on the number which our producers would like to make, nor even on the number which would maintain film studios in full production and the present labour force of film studios in their current jobs; but that it depends on the number of films which cinema audiences are prepared to pay to go and see. It is, in fact, the test of the market.
In this industry, as in any other, it is no use producing goods which the customer will not buy. One cannot hide the fact that the film industry is at present, as it has been for many years now, a declining industry. It is a declining industry not because the Government

has willed it so, but because the public have willed it so.
I should like to give the House some statistics which show the extent of the decline of public support for films exhibited in cinemas. Film audiences are now 70 per cent. lower than they were 10 years ago. As a result, there are now only half he number of cinemas that there were then. Whereas once any average film could be counted upon to provide a reasonable audience and to pay its costs, the situation now is that while people will still flock to see what they consider to be a good film, the cinema which shows a bad one will be empty and the cinema which shows an average one will be half empty.
In 1952, the number of cinema admissions was 1,350 million and gross box office takings amounted to £105 million. In 1962, admissions were 415 million—less than one-third of what they had been 10 years earlier—and takings were down to £59 million. The House may like to know that the indications to dare are that in 1963 admissions have declined by a further 8 per cent. and that a further 7 per cent. of cinemas have closed.
Moreover, there has been a continuing change in the nature of cinema audiences which I am not sure that the industry has wholly appreciated. I understand that the age group of from 12 to 25 now constitutes about 60 per cent. of the total cinema audience. This characterises the problem for producers.
Of course, the growth of television has undoubtedly been the main cause of this decline. In 1952, there were fewer than 2 million licensed television receivers in the United Kingdom; in September of this year there were over 12½ million. And I am sure that the House will agree that the quality of the entertainment provided by television has also improved enormously in recent years. So it is not surprising if the owners of television sets are no longer attracted to cinemas by the sort of run-of-the-mill film which could once be sure of a regular audience. Today, the cinema must offer something which television cannot provide.
The exceptional film can still attract a large and profitable audience, but there are too few films which can


reasonably be called "exceptional". This is no personal criticism of producers, because they are only human like the rest of us and they cannot be expected to produce a winner every time. In these circumstances, it is not surprising that there should be an atmosphere of crisis in the industry. With a major change in the size and nature of its market going on over a long period, bumps and jolts are inevitable.
Despite the decline in admissions to cinemas the production of British films has hitherto stood up fairly well. In 1952, 79 British films with a playing time of 72 minutes or more were registered by the Board of Trade. This figure rose to a peak of 96 in 1957 and has since fallen back gradually. It was 71 in 1962, and the comparable figure so far for 1963 is also 71.
The registration figures only reflect past production, however. The producers' and unions' current concern is with actual and threatened slack in the studios. It is hard to arrive at any precise measurement of the present falling off in production. The average June employment figures in the industry have been just over 4,000 over the last five years, whereas the comparable December average up to and including 1962 was about 3,600. So the House will see that there is a seasonal fluctuation. By comparison, employment this December is at about 3,100. So far, these figures indicate no dramatic falling off in activity. The fear is, however, that employment opportunities will dry up much more significantly after Christmas, through the absence of any independent production.
Independent production normally accounts for about a third of British film production, so the inference that about a thousand more people face unemployment, at least in the early part of 1964, is, on the face of it, not an unreasonable one. Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend's inquiries in the last few days have established that the studios' detailed estimates, compiled in mid-December, for the period up to the end of January indicate that, even on a pessimistic view, there should not be more than a further 120 dismissals in that period.
The other two-thirds of British production is attributable in roughly equal parts to production financed wholly or in part by the major circuits, on the one hand, and American interests on the other. As far as we know, there is no prospect of the Americans reducing their financial support of British film production, and both the major circuits have assured us that, subject to certain practical considerations—for example, the suitability of subjects—there should be no reduction in their activities in 1964.
My right hon. Friend understands that work will be continuing in the studios at least until the early part of January on four first feature and one second feature films and that two films which are at present being shot on location will return to the studios in due course. The five first and second features now in the studios are at Elstree, M.G.M.—Boreham Wood—Bray, and Merton Park.
Against this background of decline, it is not perhaps surprising that there should be a feeling among those working in the industry that somewhere or other there must exist a cure for its ills. However, too frequently those in the industry seem to think that the decline in demand for cinema films can be reversed merely by good intentions and by more public money from the Government. As I have pointed out, the public is reluctant to provide this money through the box offices.
I should like now to examine some of the proposed cures for the ills of the industry. In the summer of 1962 the then President of the Board of Trade received complaints from a group of independent exhibitors that one of these ills was an abuse by the two dominant enterprises in the industry—Rank and A.B.C.—of their superior booking power in a number of ways detrimental to the rest of the industry. This view was shared by some of the independent producers. The power of these two combines springs from the fact that each of them controls a circuit of cinemas, and that these circuits represent the only groups of cinemas which are big enough to ensure the possibility of a reasonable profit for any film which they book.
The President of the Board of Trade referred these complaints to the Cinematograph Films Council, which is a statutory body on which all sections of the industry, including independent producers, are represented, and which, in addition, has independent members and an independent Chairman. The hon. Lady the Member for Flint, Hast is one of the most prominent of those independent members. I do not know whether she or her colleagues on the Council would agree with some of the criticisms made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr). Certainly, it would be most improper for me to comment on them either way.
The Council set up a sub-committee of its independent members to examine the structure and trading practices of the industry. Inevitably, it found itself obliged also to examine the problems of independent producers, as well as independent exhibitors. Although the subcommittee reported to the Council last June, the Council decided to get the reactions of the industry to the Report. I understand that it now proposes to consider the Report and the reactions of the industry at its meeting next month. My right hon. Friend should then receive its considered advice on the diverse and complex problems of the industry and all the many proposals that have been made for dealing with them. Until this advice is available, I think the House will agree that it would be premature for my right hon. Friend to adopt any new policy for the film industry.

Mr. Jay: Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that, until this advice is available and the Secretary of State has considered it, nothing will be done by the N.F.F.C. to sell British Lion to private industry?

Mr. Price: I will come to that and if the right hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with what I say, he can interrupt me. I am trying to be as succinct as I can with what is a rather long story.
I should like to deal with one proposed remedy which the Council has already considered and on which it has reported to my right hon. Friend, with a limited number of other matters. The proposed remedy, which was put forward by some independent producers; by the unions and by the hon. Member for Newcastle-

under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler), was that the screen quota should be raised from the level of 30 per cent., at which it has been for the past 12 years, to 50 per cent.
As hon. Members will know, the quota is a system by which cinemas, unless specifically exempted by the Board of Trade, must show at least a given percentage of British first feature films. There are certain minor consequential obligations which I need not now go into. As the hon. Lady said, the Cinematograph Films Council has advised against the proposal for increasing the quota and my right hon. Friend accepts that advice. There are a number of reasons why my right hon. Friend has accepted the advice. Of course my hon. and gallant Friend suggested that my right hon. Friend might take other advice. The principal reasons are these. First, the two major circuit companies will have achieved during 1963 a quota of as much as 45 per cent., possibly more. They have announced, without any pressure from me or from my right hon. Friend, that they are reasonably confident of achieving a similar performance in 1964.

Captain Orr: What about 1965?

Mr. Price: At this rate an increase in the quota to 50 per cent. would mean no more than the showing of an additional five or so British films a year. When audiences are still declining at the rate of 7 per cent. or so each year, it is surely unwise to restrict further the freedom of exhibitors to show what they consider to be the most attractive programmes.
Moreover, we cannot expect to unload our difficulties on to the shoulders of foreign suppliers of films without the danger of retaliation in some form or other. It is worth remembering that nowadays nearly half of the income of our film production industry comes from the export of British films. We have also to remember that imports have already borne the brunt of the decline in the market. In 1952, 258 American feature films were registered. By 1962, this figure had fallen to 117. This decision of my right hon. Friend's means that the quota, which is settled annually and announced about June of each year for the succeeding year, will remain for 1964 at 30 per cent., as originally announced last June.
My right hon. Friend will, of course, be considering the quota for 1965 during the spring of next year. I can give an assurance that when the level of quota is considered we will take account of any developments which may have taken place in co-production. We are doing our outmost to provide our producers with facilities for co-production and I hope that, as happened on the Continent, the wider access to markets and finance which co-production offers will bring a genuine stimulus to our studios.
Although the Cinematograph Films Council has not reported on the other matters which were referred to, I think I can at least say a little about these matters.

Mr. William Shepherd: I am grateful for the assurance about the films for 1964. But they have been made, or are being finished. Is it possible that the two circuits can give an undertaking that, subject to the availability of films of the requisite quality, they will maintain the same percentage of British films in 1965 as they will show in 1964? That would go a long way to restore confidence in an uncertain situation.

Mr. Price: Obviously, I cannot, from this Box, speak on behalf of A.B.C. or Rank. But I will take note of the point made by my hon. Friend.
The main burden of the complaint which the Cinematograph Films Council is considering is that since there are now only two releases, that is, groups of cinemas each regularly showing the same programme, those who control them have too much power in deciding which films should be shown and which should not. These two companies do not, in practice, compete with each other for the supply of most of their films and it is alleged that they reserve the best dates for their own films or those in which they have finance.
It is further alleged that they discriminate against independent producers by making them wait an unduly long time before their films are shown. The Cinematograph Films Council Subcommittee's proposal for meeting this situation was the encouragement of co-operative booking by substantial groups of independents. As an extension of this

principle the Sub-committee expressed the hope that the industry would reopen, and bring to a successful conclusion, its negotiations to re-establish the now defunct third release.
Perhaps I might elaborate a little about this third release. There used to be three releases—and sometimes a fourth—when there were plenty of cinemas and plenty of audiences and therefore plenty of films needed to satisfy them. Whether a third release could now be reconstituted is a matter upon which I shall be greatly interested to hear the views of the Council. I was extremely interested in the comments of my hon. and gallant Friend and of the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East.
I should have doubts about any proposal forcibly to separate off from their present allegiances roughly a third of our 2,400 cinemas, because it would involve the inevitable result, or the very probable result, that the earnings of all films shown on what are now the two main releases might fall proportionately.

Mrs. White: It is very important to get this clear. If there were three separate circuits in the old sense that is true, but if one had one circuit which could overlap the other two for certain films, even though on other occasions it did not overlap them, the real winners would still maximise earnings.

Mr. Price: There is considerable force in that argument, but I was discussing circuits in the old terms and we should be quite clear what would be involved in that proposal.
I understand that the circuits are experimenting with plans for making their releases more elastic. It has never seemed entirely sensible to everyone that a good film with limited appeal, and perhaps costing less than the average, should have to conform to the pattern and be shown in all or at any rate the majority of the cinemas that make up a release. Last week and the week before Ranks divided their release into two, showing one programme in some cinemas, where it seemed likely to appeal, and another in the rest.
I do not know how practicable these ideas about elasticity will prove to be, but they seem to have the makings of being perhaps a more subtle and more effective means of achieving at least


some of the objectives of the third release proposal. I hope that they will be given full and careful consideration.
The hon. Lady mentioned the practice of the two circuits of doing what is called in trade jargon "pencilling in" dates for the showing of films well over six months in advance. She suggested that this was contrary to the spirit as well as the letter of Section 34 of the Films Act which provides that no renter shall procure the giving by an exhibitor of an undertaking, which, if legally binding, would impose on the exhibitor an obligation to take delivery of films which are for exhibition at a date later than six months after the giving of the undertaking. I will keep the hon. Lady's suggestion in mind and have it carefully examined, but my immediate reaction is that this practice of "pencilling in" may, on the whole, be beneficial to the producers as well as to the exhibitors.
It is claimed that in this way producers can obtain the benefits of audience research and can, if necessary adjust films in the making to meet changes in taste. It is also useful for the producer making a film suitable for Christmas, for example, to know in advance what dates are likely to be available, other things being equal. Moreover, circuits try to avoid showing X films at the same time, and they are understandably anxious to find attractive family programmes for holiday periods. All these things need some planning in advance.
I now come to the allegation made recently that there are about 20 British films on the shelf because they have been unable to obtain circuit bookings. I understand that at the beginning of this month there were very few British films on the shelf. The producers have given me a list of 11 which have been completed, but not yet booked. I understand that five of these are recognised to be of second rather than first-feature status; two have been offered release as co-features; two were never intended for general release in the first place; and one is not yet on offer. That leaves one.
It is true that some of these films have had to wait several months before getting a booking, but I understand that a number of them were X films which exhibitors who aim to satisfy family

audiences are understandably reluctant to book, particularly during holiday periods.
It is also being argued that there are already about 70 British films made, or about to be made, which are waiting to be shown and which, without any further production, are more than sufficient in themselves to enable a quota level of 50 per cent. to be achieved during 1964. Frankly, I am a little sceptical about this argument I shall be very surprised if, in the event, a number of these films do not turn out to be second features, or at least co-features.
The fact of the matter is that there has obviously been some over-production of films recently and that until this is cleared production will not get back on to a continuous basis. Nor, for the reasons I have already given, can or should the industry expect to resume as though nothing had happened. I have no doubt that if the standard of film production were to be so high as to attract back some of the missing audiences, producers would find themselves with more resources at their disposal and more opportunities open to them. But that is asking a great deal.
An alternative method of maintaining a reasonable level of film production would be for the industry to pay greater attention to those factors of cost, efficiency and productivity which would reduce the amount of money a film needs to make in order to make it pay. It would be hard to say that the effect upon costs of some of the things that are done both by producers and on the labour side of the industry could not be improved upon. It is inevitable, I suppose, that the industry should first direct its complaints to the Government when it is in difficulties, but I do not think that this is justified.
The British film industry is certainly not one which the Government have neglected. Indeed, the Government have consistently gone out of their way to try to help to preserve the industry. In addition to the screen quota, to which I have referred, there is the statutory scheme known as the Eady Levy, whereby money collected at the box office on the showing of all films, British or foreign, is distributed to the makers of British films, so that on average, their


commercial earnings in this country are increased by about 60 per cent.
There is also the National Film Finance Corporation which has made available over the whole of its career finance to the tune of £8 million on the basis of revolving loans to producers. The actual benefit received by producers from this has been over £20 million. About £6 million of the N.F.F.C. capital has been contributed directly by the Government and the remaining £2 million by Government-authorised borrowing.
At this point I turn to the subject of British Lion. British Lion is now a thriving company, which is much more than it was six years ago. As the House will remember, my right hon. Friend's predecessor announced on 8th March that under an agreement of 1961 between the N.F.F.C. and the other five shareholders in British Lion a series of purchasing options would apply early in 1964 providing for the acquisition by one party from the other of its interest in the company at an independent valuation, the price being the fair value of the shares on the basis of a sale as between a willing buyer and a willing seller of the entire issued share capital of the company on the open market. Both parties recognised the need to avoid the disturbance which continuing doubt as to the future of the company would have caused, and the option arrangements were therefore brought forward.
As hon. Members will have read from the N.F.F.C.'s Press notice issued last night—no doubt, it has been read by all hon. Members who have taken part in this debate—the Corporation decided to exercise its first option to buy and has thereby become the holder of the whole of the issued share capital of the company. Both the Government and the N.F.F.C. have said that they consider that this company should be in private rather than in public ownership. This remains the view of Her Majesty's Government and the Corporation.

Mr. Jay: Is that all the hon. Gentleman intends to say about British Lion?

Mr. Price: I have not finished. I was only turning a page of my notes.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South mentioned the

second option to the ex-deferred shareholders. I should like to say this without embarking on the broad policy, although I shall certainly pass my hon. and gallant Friend's comments on to my right hon. Friend. With regard to the general suggestion that the shareholders have not had a fair chance of coming in, I am informed by the N.F.F.C. that for many months past the five ex-deferred shareholders have made it abundantly clear to the N.F.F.C. that they did not propose to exercise their second option to acquire the business themselves and that if the N.F.F.C. did not exercise its first option, they would exercise their third or "put" option, and thereby require the N.F.F.C. to buy them out.
More recently they have been asked whether they would agree to extend the existing options by, say, three years and they have categorically refused to do so. I am giving to my hon. Friend merely the information I have been given by the N.F.F.C. I thought that in fairness to the House I should put it on the record, and I undertake to my hon. Friend that all the points he has raised will be brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
The N.F.F.C. has agreed with my right hon. Friend that it will be a condition of sale of British Lion that the purchaser will give firm assurances that the facilities which the company now makes available to independent producers will continue to be made available to them, and that the company will continue to be operated as a third force in the industry.

Mrs. White: Surely this by itself is an empty assurance. All it really means, presumably, is that whoever buys this company—and we do not even know who this may be—will not be allowed to accept an offer for a take-over from one of the two circuits. In other words, I presume that some kind of stipulation will be put into the articles of sale that they could not accept a take-over from one of the two major circuits. That would be the absolute minimum stipulation. But as we know, there are ways and means in the film industry of tying people up without necessarily having them bought up. It seems to us on this side of the House that any private sale—I am not speaking of a possible partnership arrangement— which


removed entirely the public interest from British Lion is bound to be to the detriment of independent producers.

Mr. Price: As the hon. Lady knows, my right hon. Friends have made it clear that they regard it as right that British Lion should go back into private hands. I repeat the undertaking that the purchaser will be required to give firm assurances that the facilities which the company now makes available to independent film producers will continue to be made available and that the company will continue to be operated as a third force in the industry. I think that the House will understand that I cannot go into greater detail today. However, I give the assurance that, as soon as a decision has been made, my right hon. Friend will inform the House.

Mr. Jay: That is not nearly good enough. Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that, if the Government really believed these assurances, which he professes to believe, they would not be in favour of selling the company to private interests at all? If the hon. Gentleman cannot say today that no sale at all will take place to private interests, my hon. Friends and I will be bound to raise the matter again at an early date.

Mr. Shepherd: Am I correctly interpreting the statement which my hon. Friend has made as not precluding the sale of this company to Rank or A.B.C. and that he is only assuring the maintenance of facilities? Presumably, an undertaking of this kind could be given by Rank or A.B.C. Secondly, are we going to make certain that this company will not be sold to American interests? I should take the view that it would be very damaging if we did allow a sale to an American-controlled interest.

Mr. Price: I shall convey my hon. Friend's fears to my right hon. Friend, but today—

Mr. Swingler: We want assurances.

Mr. Price: I cannot give the assurance for which the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) asks—

Mr. Jay: I am sorry to interrupt again, but this is important. Does the hon. Gentleman mean that he cannot even give an assurance that these

shares will not be sold to Rank or A.B.C.?

Mr. Price: I think that that assurance is implicit in what I have said.

Mr. Swingler: No.

Mr. Jay: If it is implicit, cannot the hon. Gentleman make it explicit and say that the Government will not allow the sale of these assets to Rank or A.B.C. or any majority-owned subsidiaries of those companies?

Mr. Price: I cannot go further than what I have said already to the House.
I realise that nothing I have said can deal with the immediate problem of those workers in the industry who are out of a job or who fear that they soon will be.

Mrs. White: Can the hon. Gentleman say what is the position of the present directors? Are they to be offered fresh contracts or have their resignations been demanded? They are the people who have made British Lion so successful and have earned the profits.

Mr. Price: I understand that their resignations have been made available to the new full owners, the N.F.F.C, but, in the meantime, they have been asked to carry on.

Mrs. White: Is it true that those resignations have been asked for and they were not offered?

Mr. Price: This is a matter for the N.F.F.C. which is directly responsible for British Lion.

Captain Orr: Perhaps I can help. The resignations were asked for, not offered.

Mr. Price: I am assured by the two large combines that they are doing all they can to maintain employment in their own studios both on film and television work, but, fundamentally, the only way to maintain steady and continuing work for an appropriately sized labour force in the film industry is for the industry to relate production more closely to effective demand, and costs more closely to effective takings.
In the view of the Government, the size of the British film industry should be determined by the public rather than by the Government. Of course, it may


be argued that the present system of distributing films does not give the public a fair chance to exercise its choice. As I have already said, this aspect of the problem is being investigated by the Cinematograph Films Council and my right hon. Friend is awaiting its conclusions.

Sir Lionel Heald: Would my hon. Friend give us an assurance that he will impress on the President of the Board of Trade the importance attached to this matter by all those who have come into contact with it at very short notice? Those of us who are not concerned with the film industry, and cannot claim detailed knowledge of it, are very much concerned about the question of monopolies. The date which has been mentioned indicates that an irrevocable decision might be made before the House has had a chance to consider it. I hope that my hon. Friend will impress on the President of the Board of Trade that that would be a very unfortunate thing.

Mr. Price: I assure my right hon. and learned Friend that I will convey his views to my right hon. Friend.
With this essential proviso, I repeat that it is the public, and not the Government, who determine the size of the film industry. It is, therefore, to the public rather than to the Government that the industry should direct its energies.

PICCADILLY CIRCUS (REDEVELOPMENT)

3.16 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross: I should, first, express my appreciation to the Minister for coming to the House to answer the problem which I propose to raise during the last Adjournment debate before Christmas. I refer to the problem of the redevelopment of Piccadilly Circus. The right hon. Gentleman's presence gives significance to the fact that this subject is of wide interest and that, if we can achieve a satisfactory solution of the complex problems associated with it, it will be of benefit to every other great city, not only in this country but in the world. If we can get our techniques right for Piccadilly Circus, it should help everywhere.
In the argument which I propose to deploy I will rely almost entirely on the work of Professor Colin Buchanan, which was published recently and which. I think, is commanding very great attention.
May I refer to the background to this problem? We all remember that there was a spontaneous outburst by the public when they objected to the design of a building which it was proposed to erect some years ago on the Monico site. The feeling then shown by the public demonstrated clearly the unique position which Piccadilly Circus holds in the public esteem and affection. I thought that two things emerged from the hearing, which lasted 17 days. One was that the Civic Trust, which took the initiative, became rather better known than it was, and the other was that a very great servant of the Department, Mr. Colin Buchanan as he was then, sat as inspector. I think that his great reputation has grown from that time.
There were then two aspects uppermost in everyone's mind. We all felt, first, that we must have good architecture in this area, and, secondly, that we needed a comprehensive and not a patchwork, piecemeal plan. Fundamental to all this is the fact that everyone, I think, considers that Piccadilly Circus is an essential hub or centre of the West End—one might almost say that it is the climax of the West End—and that when it is reconstructed it


should be a place for people and should express gaiety.
I propose to make only one quotation from Professor Buchanan's work. In putting forward his point of view, he dsecribed what he meant by the "environmental objectives", which he declared should come first. He said in paragraph 136, on page 52:
Attention is first turned to the environment, to delineating the areas within which life is led and activities conducted.
At the bottom under subsection (3) it says:
Traffic is seen as part of the comprehensive problem of town planning. The importance of this for the redevelopment of urban areas, for administration, and for collaboration between the professions can hardly be exaggerated.
As I continue my argument I shall make references to the paragraphs, but I will quote no more. Sir William Holford's scheme was produced for the London County Council, and they have accepted it. It was based quite clearly on defined design principles as a place for the public to resort to and into, and it allowed for a 20 per cent. improvement in traffic flow to the Circus. Now the two Ministers ask us for a 50 per cent. improvement in traffic flow, and one must say to oneself, "What has gone wrong? There is some misunderstanding".
On 2nd September, 1963, while we were in recess, the Ministers of Transport and Housing and Local Government made a statement that in 1960 the traffic flow in 12 hours of daylight through the Circus was about 56,000 and that by 1962it had risen to about 62,000. In asking for a 50 per cent. increase on the 1960 figures they declared that they must allow for 85,000 in 12 hours of daylight. When pressed, the Minister of Transport at least has been prepared to say that this is logical because the approach roads to the Circus can carry this amount of traffic and therefore it is logical that the Circus should be able to receive it.
This is what Buchanan finds most objectionable. It means that these great thoroughfares, which include Regent Street, for example, the greatest shopping street perhaps in the world, are to pour all their crude capacity for carrying traffic into the Circus. This is not traffic planning or urban development. This is

more like sewers, and a sewerage farm, where it is a case of getting the sewerage through as quickly as possible, dealing with it as soon as it gets there and balancing what comes in with what can be treated.
We have two warring concepts. I am sure that the Minister agrees. There is the concepts of the Circus as Holford originally offered it—a place of human gaiety, joy and pleasure; and there is the concept that streets such as Regent Street and Piccadilly are not great shopping streets but merely great conduits for the passage of wheeled traffic. These two concepts must inevitably be at war.
We should put to ourselves some questions. First, on what criterion did the Minister reach this figure of 50 per cent, increase? Has the London County Council agreed with it? We shall soon be getting the London Traffic Survey, and we have the Buchanan Report. The Survey will give us all the data probably that we shall require in order to carry out the essential principles which underline the Buchanan Report and the Buchanan thesis on physical planning. Have we not therefore reached the point at which we must demand a radically new road plan for the whole of London, and certainly for the centre of London? Obviously, therefore, we must avoid ad hoc improvements, especially in an area of this kind where, if we make a mistake, we shall always be ashamed of it. I am not here to make an attack; I am simply saying that we shall be considered to be vandals and barbarians by those who come after us if we make a mistake.
I wonder whether the Minister has considered what would be the financial cost of moving away from the Holford plan and increasing the flow of traffic through Piccadilly Circus in this way. The Criterion, I am told, would have to disappear. The Holford plan shows that quite clearly, the plan which was published in The Times I have a copy of it here. It is very difficult to say what the cost would be, but it would run to millions of pounds extra, because of the land and buildings which would be sacrificed to increase the traffic which could go through the Circus.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): Is the hon. Gentleman saying that to allow a relatively small increase of traffic in the Circus, to accommodate the traffic which is already likely to emerge from the improvements in the approach roads, would involve demolishing the Criterion?

Dr. Stross: That is what Holford says, that if we are to have 85,000 vehicles in 12 hours' daylight in the way which was asked for—that is, a 50 per cent, increase—the Criterion would be demolished.
It has been put to me by one of the greatest planners— certainly in this country or in Europe— that we should look at this very carefully. It has been put to me that if we are to spend money of this order it would be better spent in improving the public transport— for example, the Underground concourse, by enlarging it— by providing direct access to all the surrounding buildings, or the provision of first-floor pedestrian ways. That is how it has been put to me, and the information given to me on this point came from a source which I think very highly of indeed.
To return to Buchanan again, what does his work say about shopping streets? It refers to the growing evidence from all over the world, not only Britain, of the advantages of shopping and business
being undertaken in a completely traffic-free atmosphere.
That is in paragraph 135. It goes on to say in another part that it is, unfortunately, true that traffic has killed the concept of the street as a form of urban layout. It admits that some mixture of pedestrians and vehicles is bound to be a feature of towns for a long time ahead.
Therefore, the whole of the work that I am referring to, "Traffic in Towns", attaches great importance to distinguishing between what I mentioned, the crude capacity, the full capacity, of the street and the environmental capacity. I apologise for using technical phrases I have culled from the book, but it is better, and the Minister will understand them perfectly well. The yardstick for planning must be environmental

capacity if we are dealing with an area where environment is of consequence.
Now, if this be true, what we should be doing is not trying to increase the traffic flowing along Regent Street, for example, or the other streets which empty into the Circus. We should be making plans substantially to reduce it, not to increase it. I therefore ask the Minister to be quite resolute and firm about this, and not to lend himself to what we feel may be the ultimate destruction of the amenities in this place which our citizens have a right to expect and can have if we plan properly.
If we reduce the traffic and say that we will not have any more than we have now, we have to plan what to do with the traffic that is displaced. Here, Professor Buchanan makes his plea for the creation of proper networks and environmental areas which can both handle the traffic and give opportunities of a civilised life for our citizens. There is nothing novel in what he pleads and illustrates so profusely in his book.
Anyone who is a medical student, or has read physiology and understands how human beings live, or any form of advanced life exists without gangrene setting in, and why it is possible for the flesh to function under stress, knows that we have a primary and secondary circulation, that the heart itself has its primary circulation through which the blood is conducted and that if anything goes wrong there is the secondary circulation, the cellular network, such as Professor Buchanan describes, which given the opportunity, expands, dilates and can take over the stress if anything goes wrong with the primary circulation. So we are on excellent ground if we accept this as a philosophy for action. I am sure that Professor Buchanan would agree if he were here to listen to us.
I therefore ask the Minister: would he do some simple things? First, would he join with the L.C.C. and give approval to the principle of the Holford plan. If he does that we can get on straight away and redevelop the Monico site, because Professor Holford has made it quite clear that this could be done at once without any injury to the future of the plan as a whole.
Secondly, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to set up two working parties. One to consider the progress of the Piccadilly scheme. It will take a very long time. This should be a working party of the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry, the Ministry of Transport, the London County Council, the Westminster City Council, the London Transport Executive, the principal freeholders and the owners of the buildings. On that phrase, "the owners of the buildings", I must ask the Minister and the House to remember them sometimes. They may be kept waiting so long before we can make our minds up about what should be done that when we tell them they will say, "As far as we are concerned, we are not interested. We have long since given this up as a bad job. The capital that we have available has been spent. Therefore, we are not interested."
The second working party should be to consider ways and means by means by which not only this area, but the whole of the London area can be adequately served not only for transport but for amenity. If the Minister could help us by taking this back and reconsidering the whole matter and giving us some hope, ultimately translating that hope into practice, then he will have done something which will please not only all of us, but himself, too.

3.34 p.m.

Sir Hamilton Kerr: On this last day of the sitting before the Christmas Recess, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) has performed a service by raising the question of Piccadilly Circus. The presence of the Minister, which we greatly appreciate, shows the importance he attaches to the subject.
When we talk of Piccadilly Circus we talk of a spot which many of us feel is the heart of London. We cannot pretend that in terms of architectural merit or natural beauty it is anything but undistinguished. It cannot compare with that glittering canyon of lights we call Broadway, New York. It cannot compare with the space and vistas of the Place de la Concorde, Paris. It cannot compare with the mosaics and marbles of the Piazza of St. Marks, Venice.
It is a place of memory and association. It has woven itself into the lives of men and women of London for many generations. When we think of Piccadilly Circus we think of it not merely in terms of the Edwardian period, with Edwardian dandies wearing opera hats, cloaks and gardenias in their buttonholes, on their way to the Promenade at the Empire. We do not think of it solely in respect of the flower girls sitting round Eros, or of Boat Race night with the people singing and cheering with their light and dark blue favours. We think of it on the dramatic occasions and on the ends of the wars in 1918 and 1939 when the people of London flocked to Piccadilly Circus to express their feelings at relief from horror and suffering.
The Holford Plan maintains this tradition of it as a meeting place of joy and light. We realise, as the hon. Gentleman so vividly said, that this conception is now challenged by the menace of the motor car. We have no fewer than 1 million cars a year coming on the roads. By 1970 we shall have 17 million can on the roads. Perhaps by the year 2,000 we shall have more than 30 million cars. Families which now pride themselves on having two cars each will perhaps, be having six or seven cars.
What will life in this country be like? Surely our country, viewed from the air, will look like a series of writhing, intertwined snakes. As aircraft land, passengers will realise that the snakes are millions of cars travelling bumper to bumper. The only opportunities for peace in this country will be in sound-conditioned houses. Otherwise there will be sound everywhere, from motor cars or helicopters: sound not only in the bleakest vales of Derbyshire and Yorkshire; sound on the remotest shores of the Hebrides; and perhaps even the ice cap of the North Pole, we will not be able to escape this torture of sound. Something must be done now to recognise this menace.
One hopes that the question of Piccadilly Circus will illustrate in a dramatic form the growing man menace of the motor-car and that it may suggest possible speedy remedies for its cure.

3.38 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson: I add my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) for giving us this opportunity at this very late stage before we rise for the Christmas Recess to discuss the Piccadilly Circus scheme.
I think he was right in stressing that the arguments of those of us who have opposed the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport in this matter have been overwhelmingly supported by the conclusions of the Buchanan Report which has been so recently published.
I spoke on this matter in the general debate on the Address at the beginning of this Session. It was a somewhat unprofitable enterprise, because as it was a general debate there was no Minister to give a reply. But I did it because I wanted at the earliest opportunity to express my protest at what I thought was the disastrous action by the two Ministers taken in the quiet of the long Recess.
Nevertheless, a good deal has happened since then. During the course of that speech I expressed the opinion that the only hope of saving the centres of our cities from strangulation by the motor vehicle was the artificial restriction of the volume of traffic in city centres. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman knows, but during the war those of us who were Socialists and found ourselves in the Armed Forces were apt to be reported upon by the security authorities as "premature anti-Fascists." It was a phrase intended to be derogatory, but we were rather proud of it. In this connection I think that I can claim to be a premature Buchananite, because I expressed his doctrines before the publication of his Report.
I expressed my views at some length on that occasion and I shall not weary the House by repeating them, but I want to ask one or two questions. The first arises out of Parliamentary Questions and Answers on 6th December. I asked the Minister of Transport upon what basis of calculation he required provision for the circulation of 7,000 vehicles per daylight hour—I rounded off the figures for the sake of simplicity— and he replied:

The basis was the general agreement between the London County Council as planning and road improvement authority and myself that major junctions in London should provide for a capacity of either 60 per cent. over the level of traffic in 1960, or the foreseeable capacity of the approach roads, whichever is the less."—[Official Report, 4th December, 1962; Vol. 685, c. 1131.]
Naturally, we accepted this as an explanation, although it did not seem very satisfactory. But some days later, on 9th December, a letter appeared in The Times Stating that it was untrue that there was any general agreement of the kind described by the Minister. The letter was signed by the chairmen of the Roads and the Town Planning Committees of the L.C.C. Presumably, the Minister of Housing and Local Government is replying to this debate on behalf of himself and of the Minister of Transport and I ask him: who was telling the truth and who was not? Was there such an agreement, or was there not?
The second question which arises from the exchange is: who was responsible for the mistake? We have asked this three times of the Minister of Transport and each time he has evaded it completely, but not very skilfully. Why was Sir William Holford asked, in his original remit, to provide for only 5,000 vehicles per hour of daylight? In the light of what the Minister of Transport said subsequently, an error occurred. Whose error was it? This is a perfectly simple question. Someone must have given Sir William Holford his terms of reference and must have included a figure for circulation of traffic. What was that figure and who made the mistake if it was too low?
I want to tell the House what I think is the logic of the attitude taken by the two right hon. Gentlemen. Sir William Holford says— and, after all, he is the best authority on his own plan— that to make the amendments necessary for extra traffic provision would, in effect, wreck his whole plan. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central that the two superimposed plans published in The Times a week or two ago bear out that view very forcibly.
Sir William says that if he is asked to do it, or the request to do it is persisted in, he will resign from the project; and I think that no one will blame him. But


supposing the plan were amended in this way, and instead of Piccadilly Circus being planned as a place of amenity and pleasure mainly for people on foot, it became, as inevitably it would, a mere major traffic interception? What would happen when the circulation of traffic inevitably reached and exceeded the figure of 7,000 vehicles per daylight hour for which it was planned?
Of course, some artificial restriction of traffic would have to be imposed, and the only question I ask on that is: why not impose it in the first place and save Sir William's plan rather than have to impose it in the second place in order to prevent the strangulation of a Circus which was allowed to be a mere traffic intersection?
If the right hon. Gentleman is fair, I think that he will agree that he and the Minister of Transport now remain completely isolated on this matter and that no one agrees with their stand. Sir William Holford disagrees profoundly. London County Council has made it quite clear that it disagrees and backs Sir William. The Press is unanimous, as are architectural and planning opinion. I think that opinion in the House, in so far as it has been expressed, is also wholly opposed to the Ministers.
I say to the right hon. Gentleman merely what I said to the Minister of Transport— that surely the time has come to beat a graceful retreat, for him and his right hon. Friend to save their faces while they still have faces to save in this matter. As there has been too much delay already, will the right hon. Gentleman allow a brilliant architectural plan, which is, in all ways, worthy of the centre of the Commonwealth, to come forward at last?

3.46 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) for the opportunity that he has given me to explain to the House somewhat more of the background of the Piccadilly position and to take the matter as far forward as the Government can at this stage. I am also grateful to him for the moderate yet passionate way in which he put forward his point of view.
The whole House must have enjoyed the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Sir H. Kerr), a speech at once lyrical and yet ominous, a speech in which, like Caliban, he spoke of an isle fall of strange noises. I know that he spoke from a sense of deep feeling and I was much impressed by what he said.
I was sorry that the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson), who normally brings such diligent study to the problems he raises, should have spoken as though there could be only one side to the argument about Piccadilly. I hope that he will give sufficient credit to my right hon. Friend and to me to appreciate that, on the whole, we are faced with many problems and that they are generally rather more complex thin they appear at first sight. I hope that when I have finished saying what I have to say, it will be clear that this matter is not quite as simple as the hon. Gentleman made it appear.
I am delighted that hon. Members have quoted so freely and with such approval from the Buchanan Report. It is a masterly document, of course, and the more it is quoted and the more its principles axe ventilated, the better for the country. I hope that no hon. Member will misunderstand me if I say that quoting the Buchanan Report does not solve specific problems. It enables us to approach the problems with clear minds, but we still have to take active decisions, bearing in mind all the factors. Piccadilly Circus, at present, is a major traffic intersection and road improvement schemes which have been carried out, or which are being carried out, around Piccadilly will inevitably increase local traffic flow. It must follow that any solution for the Circus which is to allow increased pedestrian access must solve the traffic problem. It cannot be wished away. The traffic cannot be ignored.
If hon. Members anywhere in the House think that the traffic which goes through Piccadilly is entirely, as it were, discretionary traffic, I hope that they will absorb this figure: only just over one-third of the traffic using Piccadilly Circus is made up of cars. Most of the cars which use Piccadilly Circus do so, at the moment, because they must. Some are discretionary, but nearly two-thirds of the traffic passing through the


Circus is in the form of buses or service vehicles for local needs which, as things are at the moment, have to go through Piccadilly Circus.
But, as we all only too sharply realise, the Circus is also a place for pedestrian concourse and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge so eloquently said, no one would wish it to be anything otherwise. The lesson of Buchanan is that the two purposes— traffic flow, on the one hand, and pedestrian use, on the other, are, ideally, incompatible; ideally, I repeat, incompatible. The lesson of Buchanan is that we must distinguish as quickly as we can in practice between on the one hand, environmental areas where traffic is subordinate, and, on the other, the primary and distributor road network which takes the main traffic flow and distributes it.
The principles of Buchanan— that is, the division of towns and cities into environmental areas served by primary and distributor road networks— have been accepted by the Government and, over the years, the consequences will follow. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has said, there will have to be traffic surveys in the conurbations, and a number of these surveys is already in hand. Guidance will have to be issued by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Ministry of Transport, and myself, and the House may like to know that the first guidance is shortly to be issued, and then the local authorities will, as soon as is practicable, make their decisions.
The local authorities will not only be making their decisions about the networks, but will also be making interim decisions about environmental area traffic management, which is the immediate palliative which Buchanan offers, until, over the years, the network can be achieved. In London, of course, the creation of the Greater London Council, with its own metropolitan highway, traffic and planning powers, will be the instrument by which, for London, the Buchanan principles may be put into effect.
Obviously, the Government appreciate that London cannot remain a civilised city if all, or anything like all, of the

potential car traffic of which my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge spoke is to be allowed to have free access to every part of the Metropolis. That is understood. That is accepted. I think that critics go very far when they assume that because my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and I want to see some increase in the capacity through or, in any alternative way, around Piccadilly Circus, we are in favour of all traffic that potentially can arise in the future being given free rein in London. But surely, it makes sense to allow what moderate increase is practicable to pass through London; though it will be nothing like the full flow that will be implied when each household, as we have been warned, owns its own car.
What can be accommodated within a civilised London by way of traffic within the Buchanan concept cannot be laid down by the Government at this stage, and the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North, who asked me for a categoric figure, and for reasons why certain targets were adopted by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, must appreciate that the decisions about the balance between accessibility and urban amenity will only emerge gradually from the traffic surveys and the decisions made by the local authorities concerned over the years. This is not something, as Buchanan has clearly shown, that can be decided by diktat of the Government; it will emerge, first, from study and then by a series of local decisions taken by each community. In London, the community is a very large one, and there will, for the first time, be a metropolitan authority able to take that decision.
To return to the Piccadilly problem, we all agree that there are these two concepts—the network and the environmental area. Ideally, these two structural elements should be kept quite distinct; the whole gist of Buchanan is that one wrecks urban amenity if one allows a major shopping thoroughfare to become a conduit for traffic.
The lesson of Buchanan is that networks and environmental areas must be kept distinct. Sir William Holford's scheme is a distinguished attempt to reconcile both, because in his scheme he allows for some increase in the traffic flow—although not enough, in the view


of my right hon. Friend and myself—and he provides a substantial increase in the scope for pedestrians. He is trying to reconcile the two concepts which we are all agreed, in an imperfect world, cannot be reconciled—network and environmental area.

Dr. Stross: The Minister is very clear on this point, and I follow him. But I was speaking of what I had taken from the Buchanan Report when I said that for years to come this attempt to reconcile is inevitable.

Sir K. Joseph: Yes. For years to come it will be inevitable, but when we are setting in hand a major reconstruction of a key traffic intersection we have to provide for scores of years, and this is our opportunity to try to get it right.
Therefore, let us be sure that we are adopting, so far as is practicable, either the full Buchanan concept or the best practicable compromise. It is the view of my right hon. Friend and myself— and we say this in all humility, because we recognise the great distinction and dedication of Sir William Holford— that not only does his scheme not make the sensible: extra allowance for traffic that correlates with the approved approach roads, but it will leave the pedestrians, on their much enlarged concourse, hemmed in by an almost solid, noisy and smelly traffic jam.
If it is the wish of the public that there should be a greatly increased access for pedestrians in Piccadilly Circus, the only way to get it in tolerable conditions is to move a good deal of the traffic away from the Circus. The question is whether this can be done. It raises great problems of road engineering, traffic management, and so on. But my right hon. Friend and I think that these alternatives should be examined. After discussions with the L.C.C. and Sir William Holford, we have suggested that a working party should be set up, including representatives of both Ministries and the Council, to look at the possibilities for relief outside the Circus and to consider how far it is possible to accept the traffic assumptions underlying Sir William's plan. The working party will take account of the London Traffic Survey, now in progress, and we hope that it will be in a position to report in some months. I cannot give an actual date.
This has not yet been put to the L.C.C. in formal terms— and it has been impossible to put the plan to the L.C.C. formally only because of the time of the year; there has been no discourtesy— but if, as we hope, the L.C.C. is willing to join in we shall agree the membership and detailed terms of reference with it. I propose that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport or I should make another statement as soon as the details are agreed, if the L.C.C. falls in with our ideas.
Until it is clear that the traffic, or a substantial part of it, can be accommodated by some other means, I fear that my right hon. Friend and I cannot give the go-ahead to the Holford scheme. We can regret that the analysis for which we are now asking has not already been made, but the House will probably agree that in terms of traffic we are now living in a much more car-conscious world than even two or three years ago. The London Traffic Survey was started only in 1960, Buchanan has just reported, and the full implication of the torrent of cars is only now being absorbed by the public.
I take the point made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, and I am deeply concerned about the delay involved in coming to a decision on Piccadilly Circus. It is only justified by the fact that we have here an opportunity to make sense of a part of London which is vitally important to all of us, and we must try to get it right. The fact is that the Piccadilly Circus redevelopment project—

It being Four o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pym.]

Sir K. Joseph: I was saying, the fact is that the Piccadilly Circus redevelopment project comes at a time when traffic policy is taking a sudden and self-conscious change, and that is the only excuse I have for the delay involved. I hope that the L.C.C. will find it possible to accept the proposal for the working party and that the working party will report before too long.

Mr. Michael Stewart (Fulham): Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down,


there were one or two questions which my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) asked and with which I do not think he has dealt.

Sir K. Joseph: No, I did not try to deal with them because they lend themselves, I think, to answers that must be vague until the London Traffic Survey has reported. We have been at a stage of working without a full analysis, which we need for a full answer.

Mr. Stewart: I only wish to add that what the Minister has said will be of considerable interest, and though he has not yet been able to put the matter in formal terms to the L.C.C. we are pleased with the idea that the new announcement is made first in the House, which does not always happen. Obviously, it is something that we shall want to consider, and it would not be sensible to comment on it until we have all had time to do so. I feel that, as far as it goes, what the Minister has said has been helpful, and I think that my hon. Friends will be of that opinion.

ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORY, WOOLWICH (CLOSURE)

4.3 p.m.

Mr. Norman Dodds: I feel, and I am sure hon. Members will agree, that it is regrettable that owing to the sudden illness of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) it is not possible to adhere to the original programme, which would have given us very much more time. As a consequence, and in the few precious minutes left, I will be as brief as possible, because I know there are others who would like to participate in the debate before the Minister replies.
What matters most, after all, is what the Parliamentary Secretary says. Those who have had this bombshell thrown at them on the eve of Christmas will be some of the most miserable people in Britain at this period of the year. Owing to the shortness of time, many of my caustic comments will have to be left for later.
I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary why, in the long history of this

Royal Ordnance Factory, it was necessary for a Minister, who, after all, had been in his job for only a few weeks, to show this indecent haste. It would have been better if the announcement had been made earlier in the year instead of on 4th December, almost on the eve of Christmas. For about 3,000 people and their families this has been a cloud hanging over them, and, in my submission, it would have been much better if the statement could either have been made earlier or if it had been postponed until the turn of the year.
During my long years as a Member of the House I have heard many predecessors of the present Secretary of State for War, but it was never suggested that the Royal Ordnance Factory would have to close completely— restrict the level of employment, yes, but not close it up altogether. The people are far from satisfied with the statement made on 4th December. I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary a number of questions. On 4th December, the right hon. Gentleman said:
The Government are, therefore, reviewing urgently present and future activities at the western end of the estate, where the factory is to close. "—[Official Report, 4th December, 1963; Vol. 685, c. 1150.]
What does that mean, particularly when it is related to a Written Answer to a Question put on Wednesday of this week when the right hon. Gentleman said:
My Department has not had direct discussions with the London County Council about the future of the Royal Ordnance Factory, Woolwich…".—[Official Report, 18th December, 1963; Vol. 686, c. 213.]
Why not? Are urgent discussions taking place and with whom?
When the Minister refers to the statement of 4th December it only adds to the worry of the people of Woolwich and district who work there. He said:
The question of the level of industrial employment in the Woolwich area is for my right hon. Friends the Minister of Labour and the President of the Board of Trade."—[Official Report, 18th December, 1963; Vol. 686, c. 214.]
As we understand, the President of the Board of Trade is much more concerned with taking industry away from the London area to the depressed areas. We see no evidence that he is doing anything to enable industry to come into the Woolwich area. Have not we


had a lot of experience of land being available in Woolwich? What have we to show for it? Little or nothing. What hope is there for the future?
In another Written Answer, on 18th December, the Minister said:
Of the total redundancy of about 3,000, I estimate that nearly two-thirds will be 50 or over by the time they become redundant. About four-fifths are established.
This is a very serious position, because it is well known how difficult it is for a man over 50 to get work at all. Is not this a tragedy for men who have worked in Woolwich almost all their adult lives and who have regarded establishment as something to protect them in their old age? Now they are to be thrown overboard, as a result of the Minister's bombshell, which was unexpected, not only by the workpeople but by the management, and which has been made by a new Minister.
The Written Answer continues:
We shall be able to offer an alternative job in the Government service, appropriate to his skill, to every established man"—
and then it adds that
but not many of these jobs will be within reach of Woolwich.
Is not that a shocking thing with which to face people at Christmas time? Many of these men are over 50 and they must have jobs to enable them to live in the Woolwich area. Many have no houses of their own. They live in council houses. Are they to be offered houses in, say, Leeds, Nottingham, or Bridgwater? What hope is there for them? The Answer states:
The Minister of Labour and I will provide all possible help in finding new jobs…
What are they doing about that? Then there is a promise:
including facilities for retraining where needed.
Retraining highly skilled men over 50! What does the Minister have in mind? These are the questions which I wish to ask. Finally, in the Written Answer he says:
Courses could be arranged at the factory itself if necessary."—[Official Report, 18th December, 1963; Vol. 686, c. 213.]
What courses? The men and their wives and families are greatly interested in this matter.
There is every likelihood of a General Election during the next month

or two and the possibility of a change of Government, when there could be a different influence with regard to conventional armaments. No one who understands this problem, or thinks about it, can believe that there is not enough work on conventional armaments for Nottingham and Woolwich and that there could be much more work if there was a change of Government. In view of the things which I have mentioned, I beg the Minister to reconsider his decision. If the factory is to be closed down, let it be left until a new Government come to office who will look at the matter again. There may then be much more evidence to consider than is now available. If it is necessary to close the factory the men concerned, who have served their country for so long and so well, will be likely to get a better deal then than they would appear to be getting now.

4.9 p.m.

Mr. Colin Turner: I see that the hon. Members for Nottingham, South (Mr. W. Clark) and Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) both wish to speak, so I must be brief. I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he can comment on the allegation being made by people in the factory that the contract for the armoured personnel carrier was given to private enterprise, Sankeys, when the work could have been done in the R.O.F. at Woolwich, Nottingham, or elsewhere.
I wish to emphasise what has been said by the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) about people who will be redundant. Some people, even at 50 years of age, may find it worth while to move to Nottingham and elsewhere, but I am worried about the cases of people who had four years to go before retiring and who now will be left with only two years. Are they to throw out their rights under Civil Service establishment and sacrifice some of their pension? Or are they to tear themselves out of a town, a place they know and love and where probably they have children in the final stages of education, and have other difficulties?
I hope that the Government will look at the matter sympathetically. Even if it is not possible to find absolutely equivalent employment for these people during the last remaining years, I hope


that some concession will be made to enable them to carry on at the same standard of living and to receive the same pension as they otherwise would have received.
I understand that the inquiries which the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford mentioned are inter-departmental inquiries about the future of the west end of the Arsenal site. I believe that eight or nine Government Departments are tenants there. I hope that the Under-secretary will ask his right hon. Friend to expedite these inquiries, because no plan for the future use of this area, including the Erith Marshes, can be made, nor can we have a grand new town in part of the borough of Woolwich, unless there is comprehensive planning not only for industry but for housing over this vast area.
I emphasise the importance of this to these people who have been established so long in the R.O.F. and who have made it their home and lifework. It is very difficult for some of these people in the upper age groups to think of transplanting themselves. I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to their position.

4.12 p.m.

Mr. Richard Marsh: Nearly 1,000 of my constituents are involved in this closure. The suggestion that these men could be accommodated with employment elsewhere is hypocritical humbug. It is manifest nonsense to tell a man in Woolwich that he can have a job in Nottingham if he chooses to go there, or in Somerset. These men will be unemployed if the Government proceed with their present policy. Lord Poole recently visited West Woolwich and according to newspaper reports informed an audience there that there was no real problem because this area was bursting with jobs. This, too is nonsense. It is not bursting with jobs.
This south-east London area is facing the possibility of becoming something of a distressed area itself. At first sight, the possibility of building tens of thousands of new houses in the area appears attractive, but I ask the Government to give a little thought to planning and development. At the same time as they are shutting down 4,000 job opportunities, they are providing

for bringing into the area thousands of new people. Already, people have to travel from the area into central London to work. They travel like cattle. Is this to be how people are to get into central London to seek jobs if this is the policy that the Government intend to pursue?
When was this decision first taken? All the evidence is that in recent times hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money have been poured into this factory. [An Hon. Member: "Millions"]. Millions of pounds have been invested in the factory quite recently. We are entitled to ask when the decision was taken and how the Government were so thick-headed that they authorised public expenditure on this level knowing full well that the factory was to be pulled down. I understand that machinery and equipment imported from Germany specifically for this factory is to be dismantled and sent elsewhere. This is a disgraceful waste of money and the taxpayer is entitled to ask who is responsible.
The other point is this. What, in the matter of conventional armaments, is Woolwich Arsenal incapable of doing that private enterprise can do? There is a large body of opinion in the area that believes that, faced with the need to cut down to some extent expenditure on conventional armaments, the Government have been faced with a choice between profits and private enterprise, on the one hand, and publicly-owned industry, on the other. Faced with that choice, they ensure that the taxpayer bears the loss, and no orders have been cancelled with private industry.
If this is what happens at present, we are entitled to ask how the Government can conceivably handle the slightest move towards general disarmament if, on a small scale like this, their only answer is to declare 4,000 men unemployed.

4.16 p.m.

Mr. William Clark: Two factories are working under capacity, Woolwich and Nottingham. Whether Woolwich or Nottingham had been closed, we would have had the same human problem, If Nottingham had been closed we would have had the same problem as we shall


have with the closure of the Woolwich factory.
I think that we should look a little further and consider why the Ministry took this decision. There has been criticism for the past 15 or 20 years that London has become a sort of magnet for industry. Questions have been asked repeatedly by Members on both sides of the House about the dispersal of industry away from London. Bearing in mind that we have a human problem, whichever factory closes down, and the added advantage there would be in moving this work to Nottingham—I am sure the House will not think that I am saying this out of any vested interest and simply because there is an ordnance factory in my constituency—we should recognise the need for the dispersal of industry away from London.
In addition, we have to bear in mind the shortage of land for housing in and near London. London housing is bursting at the seams. Regrettable though it is that any human misery should enter into this, question, particularly in the case of older people, I hope that the Ministry, having taken this decision, will not now vacillate but will hold firm to its decision and will move this factory to Nottingham, thus ensuring continuity of employment in Nottingham and, indeed, increased employment for these people who would otherwise be made redundant.

4.17 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Peter Kirk): I share the regret of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Turner) at the absence of the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), not only because of the cause of his absence, but also because it means that I have to talk rather quickly to answer the points which have been raised.
The House will realise that nearly all the points which have been raised must require a very short description of the circumstances leading up to the decision to close the Royal Ordnance Factory at Woolwich. This decision was one of the most painful that any Government have had to take, and particularly painful for my Department, which is only too conscious that Woolwich is a good deal older than it is. Nevertheless,

ever since the then Minister of Supply my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones) announced in this House on 15th July, 1957, the prospective closure of seven Royal Ordnance factories over two-and-a-half years, involving the displacement of 7,000 workers, the future of the Royal Ordnance factory is bound to have been in the balance.
Another factory was closed down in 1960 leaving 15 factories in operation of which the War Office, on the dissolution of the Ministry of Supply, took over 13. It was, however, still clear at that point that some of these factories, among them Woolwich and Nottingham, were under-employed. It is a fact that modern weapons, even those described as conventional, are becoming progressively more sophisticated, expensive and powerful, and that many of them are required in smaller numbers, with the consequence that there is a reduced call on factory production.
Accordingly, a major review of defence manufacturing requirements and capacity was set in hand and completed in 1962. This resulted in the decision to close one of the factories in the explosives group, Pembrey. As regards the weapons and fighting vehicles group of factories, the review foresaw that after a few years there would be surplus capacity in funs and general engineering, the fields in which Woolwich and Nottingham specialise.
At that time, however, it seemed that there would be enough work to keep Woolwich and Nottingham going for two or three years because it was expected that part of the order for the new armoured personnel carrier would be allotted to them, and it was, therefore, decided that the future of these two factories should be considered again towards the end of 1964.
But then, of course, as my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Turner) has pointed out, the A.P.C. order was not all, in fact, allotted to the Royal Ordnance factories, but went to Sankeys instead. I say at once that the reason for this was that by so doing we saved the taxpayer up to £1 million. The House will know that the so-called preferred source policy is applied by the Government, particularly with regard to


the Royal Ordnance factories, whenever the difference in cost is marginal; but in this particular case it seemed to us that the difference was so great that we should not be justified in allocating the orders to the Royal Ordnance factories when so big an extra burden would have been laid on the taxpayer.
This does not imply that Woolwich or Nottingham was an inefficient works, but only that they could not compete with outside industry in certain fields, particularly in vehicle building. This particular armoured personnel carrier is very much like an ordinary commercial vehicle.
Since the suggestion has been made, both implied in Questions in the House about Sankeys and directly by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh), that the Government have been benefiting private industry at the expense of the Royal Ordnance factories, I should say that, on average, over the last five years, the Royal Ordnance factories got about four-fifths of all the orders which they are equipped to undertake. This comparison excludes the A.P.C. order which was a special case— a very heavy one—but, in the normal course of events, they have been getting four-fifths. Moreover, it is quite clear that the remaining one-fifth which has gone to private industry is not a fraction of the amount which would affect the closure of Woolwich.
The result of the loss of the Sankey order was that the review of the W.F.V. group was brought forward to 1963. As my right hon. Friend has already said, it became apparent that the maximum level of orders which this group could expect over the next few years and beyond was considerably less than half the combined capacity of Woolwich and Nottingham in the types of product which these factories are equipped to make, and I should emphasise that this is taking a very optimistic view indeed of circumstances which might arise. We decided to close Woolwich because the factory at Nottingham is more compact and economical to run, and its capacity is closer to the forecast level of orders.
I should say here, with regard to the timing of the announcement, that it has been well known, I think, in both Nottingham and Woolwich, for several

months, that some decision about their future should be taken. Morale in both factories was suffering, and it seemed best to make the announcement at the earliest possible moment. In fact, the announcement was made very shortly after the decision was reached. It was made a full three weeks before Christmas, and I realise that, at whatever time of the year it was made, it would have caused undoubted distress.
In reaching this decision, my right hon. Friend had the advantage of independent advice from Sir Eric Mensforth, the Chairman of Firth Brown Tools and Westland Aircraft. We are very grateful to him for the careful study of the problem which he made.

Mr. Dodds: Why has this information not been made available to Members? Members are not yet satisfied that there is a case. We do not have enough information.

Mr. Kirk: It would be impossible to make the detailed comments of Sir Eric Mensforth available, but I have his authority to say that, with deep regret, he endorses the decision to close Woolwich.

Mr. Marsh: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that private industrialists can have information relating to a Government industry which Members of Parliament cannot have, or even have any knowledge of?

Mr. Kirk: In this particular case, I am.
I come now to the way in which the disposal of the Royal Ordnance Factory will be effected and the way the decision to dispose of it will be related to the larger problem of disposing of the whole of the Arsenal area. My right hon. Friend has already said that we are offering 500 acres at the eastern end to the London County Council for housing development. For the rest, no comprehensive planning can be done until we have taken a decision about what Government activities, including defence activities, can usefully continue to be carried on there. To this end, as the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) said, a review is now being carried out by the War Department and by the other Government Departments interested.
The chairman of the review committee is the Permanent Under-Secretary of State for War, and the duties of the review will be to secure the right location for present and predicted Government activities at the western end, the future of the industrial buildings in the R.O.F. itself, the policy to give other Government Departments first claim on surplus land belonging to the War Department, the great need for housing land in London, and the possibility of other development in the interests of London and Woolwich generally. This, I think hon. Members will agree, is a fairly comprehensive review. It has already begun and a report will be made to my right hon. Friend at the earliest possible moment.
In the last few minutes I should like to say a word or two about a problem which I know is troubling hon. Members on both sides very greatly and which, indeed, is troubling the War Department. I refer to the resettlement of the workers who will be made redundant when the factory finally runs down in two-and-a-half years' time. We must remember that this is a fairly long and slow period of run-down. We have deliberately adopted—

Mr. Dodds: It will be run down next year, not in two-and-a-half years.

Mr. Kirk: Yes, but some run down will not take place until 1966 and that is something which we must bear in mind.
Hon. Members will be aware that in the course of the reorganisation over the whole field of Royal Ordnance factories carried out in the last six years or so we have devised arrangements, in consultation with the trade unions and staff associations concerned, for carrying out redundancies in a fair manner and for ensuring that every assistance is accorded to displaced workers to find new posts and to obtain payment, where applicable, of superannuation benefits. The hon. Member for Woolwich, East paid tribute to my Department in this respect during a debate in the House in May.
The Minister of Labour co-operates to the fullest extent whenever redundancies occur and he has arranged to give us help in this case in finding new jobs

and, where necessary, in providing retraining for the men who will be leaving our employment. Our first thought is to provide alternative employment in Government service for established workers. We can, in fact, offer suitable employment in this country to every established worker at Woolwich, but, as the hon. Member said, we appreciate that, since many of these alternative jobs, though by no means all, will be at a consider able distance from London, many industrial workers may prefer not to move. These workers will receive the superannuation benefit to which they are entitled and will be helped in every possible way by the Ministry of Labour to find jobs appropriate to their skills within reach of their homes.
The Royal Ordnance Factory at Woolwich has already received inquiries for labour from a number of outside firms and from other Government Departments. In consultation with the Ministry of Labour, these have been brought to the attention of the men, all of whom are only asked to volunteer. I do not suggest that they should go, but some of them have already had interviews with prospective employers. From that point of view, the voluntary part of the resettlement is already under way.
Turning to the question of the elderly workers concerned—and I know that this particularly worries hon. Members—it is perfectly true that a very large number are over 50 years of age. They will be entitled to the assistance that we can give, and will give, in these cases. We do not anticipate very much difficulty in finding the skilled workers alternative work in the London area; there are jobs available. There may be difficulties in a few cases in finding jobs for non-skilled workers, but, on the whole, the prospects are not discouraging, and we feel that there are good possibilities for resettling the labour force at Woolwich.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West raised the question of the pension rights. The established workers over 50 years of age have this advantage: they can get a frozen pension—that is, they will get the pension and lump sun which they have earned when they reach 60. It is put aside for them now for when they retire.
Finally, I should refer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford at the end of his speech as to why we took the decision now before the General Election. As I say, rumours have been flying round for months about the future of the Woolwich and Nottingham factories. It seemed necessary to us to put an end to this uncertainty at the earliest possible moment. We have reached the situation in which, at the most optimistic forecast of future requirements, there is a work load for only one factory. It is estimated that the saving from concentrating on a single factory will be about £1 million a year. In these circumstances, we would not be justified in postponing a decision and failing to achieve savings which could be made, and I must honestly say to the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford that, even in the unlikely event of his right hon. and hon. Friends being returned to power at the next election, I do not believe they would come to any other conclusion.
I apologise for having galloped through this, but I have tried to give the House as much information as I could about this extremely painful decision for the War Department.

Mr. Dodds: What about retraining?

Mr. Kirk: The hon. Member will be aware that under the Ministry of Labour retraining scheme there are retraining facilities in the neighbourhood of Woolwich for anyone who wishes to take advantage of them. Perhaps it will be unnecessary for those with highly technical skills to do so—

The Question having been proposed at Four o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Four o'clock till Tuesday, 14th January, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of 17th December